Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The future of work: defining a healthy ecosystem that closes skills-gaps
(USC Thesis Other)
The future of work: defining a healthy ecosystem that closes skills-gaps
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE FUTURE OF WORK: DEFINING A HEALTHY ECOSYSTEM THAT
CLOSES SKILLS-GAPS
By
Kevin Justin Williams
A Dissertation
Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
December 2020
Copyright 2020 Kevin Justin Williams
DEDICATION
First and foremost, I dedicate this dissertation to my wife Ashley and son Leo. Since I
began this journey four years ago, my wife has been supportive in ways I could never imagine.
Thank you for believing in me. And to my son Leo, you are the living embodiment of my “why.”
I hope you appreciate the key roles of love, grit and lifelong learning in building a life that yields
a positive impact on society. During my tenure as a doctoral student, we have navigated family
loss, moves to new cities, career pivots, recent impacts of COVID-19 and economic recession.
My progress along the doctoral path would not have been possible without Ashley and Leo
pushing me to swim through both high and low tide, fast and slow currents. I love you dearly.
Additionally, I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Kenneth and Gwen Williams who
are no longer with us. Although they were unable to complete college degrees, they instilled in
me a foundation of love, Midwestern values, determination, a will to embrace my identity and
drive to pursue my dreams. Thank you mom and dad, I love you.
Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to all future generations who will wrestle with how to
make a living. Given the re-emergence of automation fears, the increasing gap between haves
and have nots, increased level of anxiety many families hold about career progress and the
ability to provide a healthy and safe life for our children, this research will hopefully play a role in
a range of practical solutions.
Humbly,
Kevin
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to acknowledge the support, guidance and mentorship by key faculty at the
University of Southern California (“USC”) Sol Price School of Public Policy. First and foremost,
Professor Debbie Natoli, who since day one of my journey, believed in my potential contribution
to practice. I would also like to specifically acknowledge my Doctoral Committee Chair,
Professor Ali Abbas. Thank you for your patience, guidance and perspective as I navigated all
phases of my defense preparation. To the rest of my Doctoral Committee, Professor Peter
Robertson and Professor Emeritus Robert Turrill, thank you for your leadership, suggestions,
ideas, challenging perspectives and support throughout this journey.
Secondly, I want to acknowledge my interview participants. I am grateful that they not
only kept their interviews, but also were able to provide such rich conversation despite the
impact of COVID-19 on their schedules, colleagues and families. They range across sectors
and many in high profile roles, all with significant demands on their time, even in normal market
conditions. I am truly thankful to each and every one of them for enabling this contribution to
practice through their unique professional experiences.
And finally, I would like to acknowledge previous academic and professional mentors
who encouraged me at each moment of my development and instilled important values along
the way. My undergraduate economics professor Dr. Vince Egan planted the first seed that I
could one day successfully complete a doctorate. Countless professional development allies,
the FUSE Corps community and my colleagues at LinkedIn. All have contributed to my
understanding and appreciation of the need to apply theory to practice given an ever evolving
landscape. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vii
ABOUT THE AUTHOR ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction 1
Key Research Problem - Understanding Ecosystems 4
Four Key Research Questions 5
Research Purpose 8
Inductive Theoretical Orientation 8
Phenomenological Research Methodology 10
Contribution To Practice 11
Summary 12
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Introduction 13
Workforce Reshaping 13
Quality of Jobs 15
Various Education Pathways 16
Range of Learning Functions 18
Innovation and Design Fields 19
Business Ecosystems 21
Evaluating Ecosystem Healthiness 23
Systems Theory & Organizations 32
Summary 35
iv
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 36
Introduction 36
Research Question 36
Methodology Selected - Qualitative Grounded Theory 39
The Twelve Study Participants 41
Data Collection - Virtual Interviews 43
Procedures Followed Through IRB 44
Data Analysis and Coding Approach 47
Trustworthiness 47
Ethical Concerns 48
Research Limitations 50
Summary 50
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 51
Introduction 51
General Trends Within Data 51
Research Instrument Interview Approach 52
Question 1 - Data Results 53
Question 2 - Data Results 56
Question 3 - Data Results 58
Question 4 - Data Results 60
Question 5 - Data Results 63
Question 6 - Data Results 66
Question 7 - Data Results 69
Question 8 - Data Results 72
Question 9 - Data Results 74
Question 10 - Data Results 78
Summary 82
CHAPTER 5: CONTRIBUTION TO PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 87
Introduction 87
Answers to Research Questions 87
Significance to Workers 89
Significance to Firms 90
Significance to Policymakers 91
Research Areas Identified for Further Study 92
Conclusion 93
v
BIBLIOGRAPHY 94
APPENDIX 99
Research Instrument Displayed to Subjects 99
IRB Approved Informed Consent Form 108
Coded Data & Results 114
vi
ABSTRACT
This dissertation research focuses on a foundational aspect of the future of work
conversation, the lens of ecosystems. Understanding what ecosystems are and how to better
understand healthy ecosystems is fundamental to how the labor force in the United States
economy evolves in the coming decades. Specifically, this study will seek to identify a “retrofit”
model that enables workers, employers and policymakers to better define “healthy” ecosystems
that reduce skills-gaps overtime. The objective of this research includes: defining a healthy
ecosystem, understanding the main inputs of a healthy ecosystem, understanding any
byproducts of a healthy ecosystem, and through the retrofit model created, provide an
assessment for how an ecosystem can determine if it is healthy or not.
“Healthy ecosystems” will be operationally defined as a range of inputs (e.g. sustained
hiring rate, diverse mix of industries, etc) that combine to produce a productive, robust and
value creation interconnected dynamic within a city across private, public and non-profit sectors
in a way that allows skills-gaps to reduce. Additionally, more inputs and dynamics may be
further identified over the course of the study.
Currently, a gap in research exists in that various approaches to solving workforce
development issues and skills-gap concerns has been offered, but they lack with respect to how
to institutionalize the most effective approaches taken and provide that solution to larger
populations over the short term, within three years. The primary intended outcome to practice is
to enable United States cities, states, federal workforce efforts and private sector re-skilling and
upskilling efforts to apply a strategic model that is immediately replicable, scalable and flexible
enough to be tailored to unique circumstances and dynamics.
vii
Through a research instrument based interview approach, I designed a series of 10
questions across three parts: definitions and characteristics, ecosystem examples and final
thoughts. Twelve interviewees were targeted across public, private and non-profit sectors that
have extensive professional expertise and understanding of ecosystem functionality, workforce
development and skills-gap mitigation experience.
From interviews, I sought to understand the top three key inputs that indicate a healthy
ecosystem, most important factors that are sufficient for a healthy ecosystem, any directional
relationships across indicators and factors, and key characteristics of contrasting examples
between healthy and unhealthy ecosystems within United States cities. The 12 hour long
interviews were audio recorded, transcripted via software to create transcripts, anonymized and
then served as basis for coding and analysis. Finally, this study offers contributions to practice
to three distinct audiences, workers, firms and policymakers, that will benefit from a better
understanding of healthy ecosystems and their key indicators.
viii
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mr. Kevin Justin Williams is a candidate for the Doctor of Policy, Planning and
Development Degree at the University of Southern California located in Los Angeles, California.
Mr. Williams serves in a leadership position on the Global Initiatives team, Sales Readiness at
LinkedIn. Mr. Williams’ role at LinkedIn entails scaling strategic global programs in support of
the LinkedIn vision, to create economic opportunity for every member of the global workforce.
Additionally, he serves on the Executive Education Teaching Team at the Stanford Graduate
School of Business. Mr. Williams has been extensively involved in the evolving field of online
education and professional development for executives. He previously served in the United
States Navy. Mr. Williams holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Economics from Morehouse
College in Atlanta, Georgia and a Master of Business Administration Degree from The Stanford
Graduate School of Business located in Palo Alto, California.
ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Based on existing technology, 51% of activities today in the US economy are susceptible
to automation (McKinsey, 2017). The jobs at risk are not just the middle-skilled functions in
industries like manufacturing, hospitality, food service, retail that will be most readily impacted.
It will also disrupt banking, legal profession, accounting, etc. Therefore, given the fast rising
technology, it is incumbent upon cities to prepare their workforces that are and will be based on
new technology, not jobs that once were, which has changed drastically over the past 65 years.
However, it is important to provide context around the three key trends and them127es
that are oftentimes confused when parsing out the future of work category (Anthes, 2017):
1. Artificial intelligence and automation
2. The rise of independent workers (e.g. freelancers, short-term contractors, gig economy)
3. The skills-gap
The focus of this research is specifically to practitioners understand what a healthy ecosystem is
and how to enable and sustain one, with respect to mitigating skills-gaps.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automation
The fear around both AI and automation destroying jobs has long standing roots when
considering the role technology has always played (Arntz, 2017). Those who fear an enlarged
impact that technology has on workers and skills is classically known as the Luddite movement
1
which has its origin in the 19th century (Williams, 2009). But in order to provide current context,
it is important to understand the concept of “skills” and skill formation.
Automating a task creates productivity, as more work can be done with less resources.
And routine tasks are usually the first to be automated away. In recent years, the development
of AI has been so rapid that many non-routine skills have begun to be encroached by machines.
The impact of driverless cars, facial recognition, and algorithms aimed at determining your mood
for social networks and advertisers will continue to evolve (Davenport, 2018). But this
represents a larger driver of the pressure to determine the degree and the nature of jobs
available. This pressure serves as context for this research, but is not the primary focus.
The Rise of Independent Workers
There is a clear trend of a rise of freelancers, short-term contractors, and people
participating in the gig economy (Anthes, 2017). Today there are 60 million independent
workers in the US, according to McKinsey Global Institute. By some estimates, as many as 90
million people are interested in independent work (Allen, 2017). There are three reasons for
this:
1. Rise of millenials (age 18 - 34) who are interested in more autonomy. By 2025, this
group will represent nearly 75% of the global workforce (McKinsey, 2017)
2. The rise of online marketplaces (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Arbnb, etc)
3. Companies will find contracting workers increasingly more cost effective
Although the rise of independent workers is part of the story of how people have begun
to supplement their income and creates less friction in labor markets, it is more of an outcome
rather than an input to the skills-gap and therefore not the focus of this research.
2
The Skills-Gap
The skills-gap lends itself to the most practical area that public, private and non-profit
sectors can most directly impact communities and lives through short term actions.
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2019, the current skills gap: 6.9 million
open jobs, is the biggest number on record since the department has tracked the data.
1
A debate exists around whether this is a natural byproduct of the economic cycle. And
once wages increase enough, people will come off the sidelines, retrain themselves, and take
advantage of those additional jobs (Hodgson, 2016). But the other side of that view is that there
is not one, but multiple skills-gaps. Meaning, there are specific gaps, in specific cities, at specific
points in time. For example, Detroit's shortage of quality software engineers, Washington DC a
shortage in law enforcement, and Salt Lake City a shortage in game developers (Brown, 2012)
There are three reasons, commonly understood, for the skills-gap (Autor, 2015):
Table 1
Three reasons skills-gaps exist.
1
A number of different approaches to calculating Skills-Gaps exist. The following definition and approach
will be used throughout this research. Progressive Policy (2019). America’s Skills Gap: Why It’s Real, And
Why It Matters ( https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SkillsGapFinal.pdf )
3
1. Low Supply - Not enough workers with the specific skills demanded by that city
2. A Lack of Mobility - People are not moving to where the jobs are (at an all time low since
World War 2)
3. Information Asymmetry - People who have the skills, do not know where the
companies/roles actually are
Understanding healthy ecosystems, that also distinctly narrow the skills-gap specifically,
is where this research will focus. My research will also seek to understand how the most
effective cities navigate through the above three factors.
Key Research Problem - Understanding Ecosystems
Given Moore’s Law, the rate of change may potentially increase going forward. The new
jobs created have not yet been identified. Workers state that employers prefer those who have
done the work for the role previously. Employers claim that they are unable to identify qualified
candidates given the skills required for both existing and new roles. The nature of the
employer-employee relationship has changed significantly over the past 40 years. As a result,
the United States workforce is unprepared to address the needs of tomorrow.
Therefore, this research focuses on how we can better understand ecosystems within
U.S. cities and regions in a way that illuminates the benefits and costs of forces that impact
skills-gaps. Cities feel they need to be better positioned given what the economy and
technology implications will look like in the future. The impact of artificial intelligence and
automation on jobs is top of mind given the desire to have robust work and jobs aligned. By
studying the phenomena among healthy ecosystems, lessons may be identified to enable
4
further appreciation of the changing models of work, including independent work and the gig
economy. But companies, cities and workers themselves feel vastly under prepared for how to
identify the best model that addresses their specific skills-gap and are unclear how to scale the
solution to their problem once it is identified.
Four Key Research Questions
Through the research instrument, the goal is to refine a definition of a “healthy
ecosystems,” and relationships of inputs and outcome assessment indicators, through 12
experts across sectors and extensive professional expertise in at least one of three areas:
innovation methodologies, re/up skilling as a result of professional opportunity, or
professional-executive education pathways. To help uncover the best way healthy ecosystems
enable talent with the right skills, in the right locations, at the right time and scale approaches
that work, there is an approach to the research that includes interviews with participants that
become more rich and robust overtime, given momentum established by myself as the
interviewer. A central concept key to understand the context of an ecosystem in this study is
the skills-gap. I will operationally define skills-gap as the mismatch between the skills the
employers need (the demand) and the skills workers have (the supply).
My initial approach to defining a “healthy ecosystem” was informed by Iansiti and
Levian’s (2002) requirements of a system being productive, robust and niche. However, my
revised fields for assessing healthiness include: productivity, resilience and enabling value
exchange. Each of these three revised indicators of healthiness will be discussed, along with
the following inputs to help uncover phenomena around a healthy ecosystem and how it
functions to reduce its skills-gaps. My key inputs that play a role in ecosystems are the
following, in no particular order prior to the interviews with participants:
5
1. Sustained hiring rate over a period of time
2. Continuous skills gap reductions in key job functions
3. Successful public-private partnerships
4. Affordable housing stock
5. Robust menu of education options
6. Public sector leadership
7. Frictionless migration
8. Diverse mix of industries present
Entering the interviews with participants, I understood that my definition and operating
assumption could evolve and be refined overtime. A key challenge here was to balance the
research instrument as a tool to capture healthy ecosystem insights with an appropriate length
of time for cross comparison. The focus on honing the “healthy ecosystem “ definition was a
key part of my research instrument to establish a baseline understanding to frame the
conversation. This initial portion of the interviews was designed to start broad with definitions,
and then get more narrow overtime to better help address the central question and subsequent
questions without guiding or influencing the participant.
To help establish my list of inputs, data from LinkedIn Economic Graph data will be used,
in conjunction with United States Census data. Supporting data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
2
Statistics, local Chambers of Commerce and the Federal Reserve will also be analyzed.
Additional determinants, concepts and metrics that helped illuminate and refine my
inputs of an ecosystem, were built considering the following concepts:
2
LinkedIn Economic Graph Weekly Report entails more updated data in real time versus other platforms.
However, it is true that the data only reflects those that are on the LinkedIn platform. Despite this sample
dynamic, it was used given representativeness of worker and employer activity within the United States.
6
1. “Hiring Rate” - the percentage of LinkedIn members who changed the name of their
employer on their profile the same month they began their new job, divided by the total
number of LinkedIn members in the United States.
2. “Skills-Gap” - the mismatch between the skills the employers need (demand) and the
skills workers have (supply).
3. “Scarcity” - when employer demand for a certain skill exceeds worker supply of that skill
4. “Abundance” - when worker supply for a certain skill exceeds employer demand for that
skill.
5. “Migration rate” - the percentage of households moving from one location to another
6. Other more traditional employment data included: annual wages, unemployment,
industry growth, job function growth, unemployment claims and graduation rates.
Research Questions
Central Question
1. What is the definition of a healthy ecosystem?
Subsequent Questions
2. What are the main inputs of a healthy ecosystem?
3. What are any byproducts of a healthy ecosystem?
4. How might we assess if an ecosystem is healthy or not?
Second, this initial research instrument test phase with five individuals will then establish
the definition of what makes an ecosystem healthy, so that it may optimize skills-gap reductions.
Further testing of the research instrument illuminated how solutions to skills-gap reductions in
healthy ecosystems could be considered whether you were a worker, firm or policymaker.
7
Common stakeholders initial targets includes: companies tasked with significant learning tasks,
community colleges, mid-career programs within business schools, mayor’s offices, local
agencies responsible for executing policy, national nonprofits that have established thought
pieces on future of work in that particular city/region, state level stakeholders, rapid innovation
professionals, and technology company executives with automation expertise. An allowance will
be made for various stakeholder groups to be added given insights that may be uncovered
overtime. An Institutional Review Board (IRB) process was conducted.
Research Purpose
The purpose of this study is to identify phenomena around healthy ecosystems to help
ensure U.S. workers can effectively and sustainably earn living wages in the future. A better
understanding of this phenomena will enable understanding of inputs to create healthy
ecosystems and their indicators of outcomes. The type of healthy ecosystems focused on in
this study are those that reduce skills-gaps. This fuller understanding of healthy ecosystems will
enable the creation of a "retrofit" model to support the structure and function of organizations
and the people in such organizations, their families, and greater communities. This income and
wage implication ultimately affects inequality (Sorenson, 2007). And in order for the model to be
of benefit to workers, employers and policymakers, an equity lens and sensitivity to mitigating
inequality must be actively sought and maintained.
Inductive Theoretical Orientation
The theoretical orientation of my research is inductive (Cresswell, 2018). The general
overarching framework is out of social science theory. An interdisciplinary approach will be
taken to provide guidance on analyzing data and then forming a new strategic model
8
for cities that effectively addresses the skills-gap. Specifically, the primary theories that I expect
will explain what I seek to find in the research are subsets of economics, management science,
ethics and political science, namely:
1. Organizational Design Theory - To determine how best to institutionalize innovation
through variation, selection and retention of the best ideas. Then use frameworks such
as PARC (People, Architecture, Routines, and Culture) to serve a guide (Barnett, 2002)
2. Strategic Leadership Theory - To determine how best to set strategic direction and select
the best ideas from a range of stakeholders. The benefit is understanding how the best
organizations and efforts have a clear view of their goal, scope, advantage, logic to and
make decisions to engage in exploration or exploitation strategies (O’Reilly, 2016)
3. Leadership - Power Dynamic Theory - To best understand the soft skills embodied by
the most effective political, social and private sector entrepreneurs including:
understanding leverage, negotiating from positions of strength, creation of coalitions,
navigating personality types, and assessment of others needs (Pfeffer, 2010)
4. Inter-Organizational Collaboration Theory - To determine how various types of
organizations interact, reciprocate, respond and behave in a collaborative context.
5. Deontological Ethics - To provide guidance, given historical context, around how
workforces have responded to economic changes since the industrial revolution out of a
sense of duty to a common good (Baron, 2009).
6. Progressivism - To illuminate a path for reform, as a nation founded on principles of
equality and self-government that previously achieved mass secondary education. This
will therefore serve a guide for addressing workforce development needs in the future
(Brown, 2013).
9
7. Rapid Innovation - To understand the role human centered design as a practice that may
enable scaling of pilots, attaining user feedback, etc. (Bielenberg, 2016)
8. Learning Neuroscience - To understand how well solutions are being offered and well
aligned with how the brain encourages learning, at various points throughout a
professional’s career.
9. Labor economics and career development - To identify best practices in how workers
and professionals enter the workforce, establish an initial set of skills, and then acquire
new skills throughout a modern career. (Pfeffer, 2018)
10. Strategic Planning - To understand how organizations and workers cycle through
scenarios and possible industry and functional roles to address skills-gaps (Schwartz,
1996)
11. Future State & Political Economy - To understand opportunities and risk of political,
social and economic trends given the evolving nature of globalization, industry and
technology. (Ross, 2016)
Phenomenological Research Methodology
The research methodology will be to conduct phenomenological research. Prior to
interviews, quantitative data was obtained and studied through LinkedIn Economic Graph, City
Chambers of Commerce and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to better understand key
indicators of regional and city activity between workers and employers. This data collection and
analysis was done both prior to and during qualitative data collection through interviews with 12
participants, done remotely. Work was done to refine indicators and establish a consistent
interviewing experience prior to making any generalizations, revising approaches to explaining
10
questions and drawing conclusions from pattern identification. A qualitative approach will be
taken to create interview transcripts from the recorded sessions, code the transcripts, identify
pattern and themes, then arrive at conclusions relative to my initial hypothesis (Cresswell, 2018)
Contribution To Practice
The contribution to practice of this research is three fold to specific audiences: workers,
firms and policymakers. First, the research will establish a “retrofit” model to understand what
healthy ecosystems are and how to enable them, considering future work dynamics around
skills-gaps. The retrofit model will begin with a model using productivity, robustness and niche
creation as indicators of outcomes (Iansiti and Levien, 2002) . The goal is for the “retrofit” model
to be generalizable enough to be applied across a range of organization and ecosystem types
and flexible enough to be tailored to specific nuances. It is important that firms, workers and
policymakers who aim to apply the “retrofit” model have confidence that the basic and
fundamental elements of the model can be applied across ecosystem type, industry mix,
function mix, worker mix, city structure, political climate, economic climate, etc. However, the
flexibility requirement allows for an approach to tailor, refine, and make more unique given overt
and subtle nuances that make one ecosystem uniquely different from another.
Second, the result of the study is scalable by size, so that once the particular “retrofit”
model has demonstrated success in smaller ecosystems, it can be applied across much larger
cities, states or even regions of the United States. For the “retrofit” model to be scalable, a
demonstration of success at larger levels of various metrics must be demonstrated. And
beyond some identifiably point, the resources required to address order of magnitude larger
differences are a fraction of the outcomes accomplished.
11
And third, the study will demonstrate how to sustain the application of the “retrofit”
model, in that the results it produces last overtime. In order to accomplish this, an identifiable
path for replicability, sustainability and continuous improvement will be given in a clear way. The
human capital required to continuously replicate and refine over time is a pathway that
capitalizes on a feedback loop across stakeholders and those executing the model.
Flexibility at local levels first is the goal, to understand what is working by experimenting
around the country. This may take the form of cross-sector collaboration, entrepreneurial
encouragement, or even corporate innovation to set a tone for collaboration. With regard to the
future of work, the United States is essentially where the issue of climate change was in the
early 2000’s, as there were scholars who began to make cases that a need was arising but
there were no effective policies in place at any level. Yet this began to change with city and
state policy over time. The similar path is required to address future of work challenges and
policies at scale (McKinsey, 2017).
Summary
Contributions to help answer core questions around phenomena of healthy ecosystems
for the benefit of workers, firms and policymakers in a manner that contributes to the practice is
the ultimate goal of this research. To help understand the theoretical and historical landscape
of research that is foundational requires an overview of a number of fields. The following
Chapter 2: Literature Review, will serve as a basis for identifying the historical underpinnings of
key concepts around the role of ecosystems in the future of work field, specifically around what
healthiness entails and a means for best understanding relevant phenomena.
12
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the previous literature relevant to establishing
a foundation to my research. This includes an overview of key fields, their most important
historical impacts within the field, as well as foundational concepts that informed my own initial
version of a retrofit model to test with interview participants.
The gap in research highlighted exists at the intersection of the following focus areas:
Workforce Reshaping, Quality of Jobs, Education Pathways, Learning Functions, Innovation
and Design, Business Ecosystems, Evaluating Ecosystem Healthiness, and Systems Theory of
Organizations
Workforce Reshaping
As the new economy has taken hold over the past 20 years, we have seen more
disruption of old line industries and career functions. And over the next 15 years, the adoption
of functions like artificial intelligence and automation technologies will further transform the
workplace as professionals interact with smarter and more intelligence machines (Brynyjolfsson
and McAffee, 2014). Much of the literature around what professionals have needed to convey
in order to navigate their careers over the long term is being challenged in some respects.
Traditionally, engaging in a career for 25 - 35 years displaying domain-expertise was thought to
be secure (Zabel, 2012). But the role of a faster adoption cycle of technology given Moore’s
Law is seen as forcing the main trait that is constant overtime for the worker of tomorrow is that
of the ability to learn, adapt, and incorporate a healthy relationship with technology.
13
The literature is continuing to develop further around the answers to key professional
questions by the workers of tomorrow. Who am I professionally? What is the higher purpose of
my work? Where am I and how will I get there? And how do I gain trust, credibility and
connection? These are key questions that the literature illuminates (Aaker, 2018).
The is a common thread across the literature regarding some fundamental dynamics
with the workforce of the future. There will be a need for finely tuned social and emotional skills
(Brynyjolfsson and McAffee, 2017). These finely tuned social and emotional skills are viewed as
safe from machines displaying a master over them with respect to humans. Overall, the
demand for these social and emotional skills is expected to grow across all industries by 26
percent between 2016 and 2030 (Brynyjolfsson and McAffee, 2017). The need for leadership
and managing others is also uniformly expected to grow.
There is also general agreement in the literature that there will be a shift in demand
toward higher cognitive skills. The demand for higher cognitive skills such as creativity, critical
thinking, decision making and complex information processing expected to grow through 2030
(Council on Foreign Relations, 2017).
The role of individual firms, certain key industries, and the private sector in general plays
can be viewed from multiple vantage points. There is extensive literature around the role that
certain firms and industry play when enabling the economy and society to shift toward
secondary education, especially around the 1900’s. However, more literature is needed on how
exactly similar types of movements can be created that can be led by the private sector
industries of today and tomorrow, especially given current labor market challenges (Beston,
2017).
Strong literature exists around the important role that governments play, alongside firms,
in both the workforce and housing ecosystems. This literature explores the idea of “government
14
as a platform” and how workforce development efforts utilize various levers at their disposal to
attract and retain jobs. In particular, a good amount of research has been done on various case
studies here, like the public partnerships across numerous stakeholders in the Golden Triangle
example in Mississippi. In 2003, leaders from three communities joined forces to recruit new
companies to the region that had previously lost about 12,000 manufacturing jobs in the 1990s.
But through improvements to local infrastructure (e.g. highway, rail, air, water, sewage and
factories), various tax and financial incentives, and investments in training programs designed to
ensure a steady supply of capable manufacturing jobs, local leaders were hoping to engineer an
ecosystem that was compelling enough to attract companies. By 2017, almost 6,000 jobs had
returned to the area (World Economic Forum, 2016).
This case study is cited often and is a large example of the power of government as a
platform and business ecosystem development. Where the literature is still evolving, concerns
the new non-traditional cities that entrepreneurs decide to live in, replacing previous silicon
valley opportunities, like Philadelphia and Kansas City (Van Looy, Debackere, Andries, 2003).
There is very little literature around what this evolution means given the psyche of the worker
and its impact on anxiety, productivity and workplace performance.
The Quality of Jobs
The literature is aligned on what is happening to the majority of workers. Workers are
experiencing falling wages and real income, fewer full-time jobs, diminishing job security,
heightened ageism, and essentially a failure of the K-12 schooling system to prepare students
for occupations. At the root of this challenge is the idea around the quality of jobs and worker
experience (Gratton, 2010). The literature is evolving on this front. The role that work plays in
people’s lives and hope employer practices do not make many workers feel appreciated at the
15
least, and at the most not invested in properly. There is some literature on the relationship of
work to the rest of our lives (Pfeffer, 2018). Meaning, we hope to have reasonable and reliable
work hours, flexible paid family and sick leave, along with vacation time. Many also feel that
work should not leave us exhausted or debilitated, sick or with occupational hazard or serious
injury. Although plenty of literature exists on how this evolution of worker conditions has
improved in the United States from the late 19th century through the 1970, the literature begins
to taper off after the deteriorating conditions alongside the longer work hours of the 1980s and
1990s. The literature is evolving on how worker conditions, quality of life, and worker happiness
has evolved recently and is expected to track in the near future given automation and policy
shifts (Ross, 2016).
Various Education Pathways
The literature is extensive on the role of university degrees in lifetime earnings. There is
an evolving body of literature focusing on the disruption in the labor market relative to the
increasing costs of higher education. The student loan debt levels are at historical highs as of
2018 and this cost to value ratio is the basis of newer literature, albeit sparse. The literature is
evolving on the role that nanodegrees, non-degree, and certificate programs play in their
approach and ultimate value to the re-skilling requirements that today’s workers need. The
power and value of that signalling to both current and future employers on behalf of
professionals is a body of literature that is still in its infancy.
However, the literature is vast around the role that community colleges play in preparing
workforces over a long period of time within the United States. Meeting the needs of the
workforce is historically the primary realm and responsibility of community colleges (Lemoine
16
and Richardson, 2015). The career pathway movement has brought new players to the field by
blurring boundaries with secondary career and technical preparation at one end of the spectrum
and comprehensive universities that extend learning at the other end of the spectrum (Susskind
and Susskind, 2015).
There are conflicting conclusions in the literature around how effective community
colleges have been across certain industries, functions and cities (McKinsey, 2017). Not
everyone agrees how workforce preparation is defined with the contemporary examination of
higher education currently underway. However, a few approaches here are agreed upon
thematically in the literature:
1. The need to agree on basic assumptions about the workforce. What is meant by
“workforce preparation?” What is meant by the “local workforce?”
2. The need to increase positive impact within the workforce. In order to ensure
best practices are being implemented at a variety of education levels include the
need to effectively: inquire, communicate and share.
3. The need for community colleges to review, refine and respond to industry to
constantly increase relevance.
Community colleges play a keenly important role in supporting the local business
ecosystem. It is critical that the full spectrum of educational opportunities, from secondary to
graduate school, are included in any conversation on educational pathways. A final area where
literature is still evolving is how each region’s local community college ecosystem is responding
to shifts in not only technology in various roles, but also how job relocation patterns are
developing.
The literature around the approach to apprenticeships is extensive, but focused on new
economy roles, this literature is evolving. This “modern-apprenticeship” model which focuses
17
on technology intensive roles, is evolving and is considered as an increasingly available path to
those workers who decide that the cost to attain certain skills from more traditional educational
paths is not worth the payoff and would rather learn directly from those with practical
experience. This applies more to certain occupations, certain demographics and in certain parts
of the country as well which should be taken into account.
Range of Learning Functions
The literature agrees that in order to harness new technologies to their full effect,
companies will need to retool their corporate structures, processes and approaches in order to
function (Ford, 2015). This change by businesses will require not only redesigned processes
and a focus on understanding the difference between the talent that they have versus the talent
that they need, but the strategic skill and ability to execute in order to bridge that gap effectively
(Senge, 2006).
An evolving body of literature surrounding the best approaches that companies,
demand-side, should take in order to remain competitive is developing. The literature here out
of business schools has transformed from classic management science around organizational
development, to incorporating new techniques to ensure innovative strategy and culture forms
to continuously improve the organization. Across the literature, the rise of corporate functions
like Chief Learning Officer, and ecosystems of learning platforms like Coursera, Udemy and
LinkedIn Learning, all point to the increased importance of both companies and workers being
much more nimble in how re-skilling takes place.
What is subject to debate within this same literature is exactly how both learning
functions and the learning platform ecosystems should be optimized. Compelling questions
form around how a company chooses between delivering short-term skills versus longer-term
18
skills, especially given its status of being either publicly traded where short term results are
favored, or privately held where longer term value can be better executed against (Ross, 2016).
Other areas subject to debate within the literature surrounds how exactly learning
programs should cater to a growing remote workforce in many industries and across many
cities. Even further debate surrounds the right metrics, mentoring programs, management
approaches, and mix of diversity that companies should aim for to best enable their employees
to continuously learn, develop, and grow in the new economy alongside technology that is
forcing professional identity to change, rapidly in some cases (Pfeffer, 2015).
The literature is also uniform around the notion that worker value will continue to be
rewarded by companies. At its root, this concept states that the value you provided to your
company yesterday will no longer be rewarded, you will only be rewarded for the value you can
provide currently and in an ongoing way in the future (Pfeffer, 2015). But there is uncertainty in
the literature around the best way to continuously re-skill in order to signal that value, and do so
in line with the skills that a company or business ecosystem has in a region over time.
Innovation and Design Fields
The literature around how multiple strategic and execution oriented approaches assist
management teams is extensive. Strategic planning as a field has a long history and a
distinction in applicability should be made compared to predictive models and forecasts (Wade,
2012). Understanding how a firm or worker can best make decisions and iterate through the
three to five scenarios of the future that matters most to them will be a key ingredient of the
strategic model honed and sought in this contribution to practice (Van Der Hejden, 2005). The
literature on strategic planning in particular focused on future states within highly disruptable
industries is not as extensive however.
19
Further, literature comparing the most effective best practices in implementing and
executing the results of the strategic process is evolving. The field of leadership, management,
organizational development and business operations should be further highlighted and address
the current best thinking and approach to practice.
The literature on innovation labs and their ability to enable sustainable approaches by
management teams is evolving as well. However, the approach of innovation labs specifically
designed to anticipate disruption deserves more literature than currently exists. Disruptive
innovation labs foster disruptive innovations - high risk, high-return breakthroughs that often
start at the bottom of a market but eventually displace established competitors. Likewise, more
focused versions focus on minimally viable products, journey maps, data summits, strategic
visioning exercises, and rapid prototyping. The impact of these approaches in enabling
execution is worthy of further study.
Disruptive innovations require different timeframes, processes, performance metrics,
people and skills than incremental innovations. The evidence shows that disruptive innovation
labs work better when separated from core business operations, are invested in, and are
supported throughout the entire organization.
An evolving body of literature shows that various innovation labs benefit from “soft
integration” methods, such as social integration of senior teams, job rotations, collaborative
planning, shared knowledge networks and cross-functional teams and task forces. These
methods help focus the lab’s efforts on real world problems. They also reduce conflict, leverage
existing assets, economies of scale, and encourage adoption and deployment of breakthroughs
(Bielenberg, Burn, Dickenson, Galle, 2016).
Most management teams aspire to innovation “ambidexterity” - the ability to fully exploit
existing assets while exploring new capabilities required for future success (O’Reilly and
20
Tushman, 2013). The literature is extensive here. But the literature is evolving on how
companies should apply this ambidexterity to ensure the execution of strategy surrounding
workforce development and learning in an efficient and responsible way at scale.
Business Ecosystems
Business ecosystems are a conceptual foundation here. I have drawn conclusions after
reviewing literature surrounding interorganizational ecosystems, how various organizations play
certain roles in ecosystems, what dictates alignment of the organizations with a broader
objective, and how success or “health” might be measured in the pursuit of that broader
objective. The refined approach to research includes three steps. First, I have started by
providing a more clear conceptual description of ecosystems, based on the further review of the
literature, that will be used as a frame for defining interorganizational ecosystems for this
research purpose. Second, I have then detailed three emerging ecosystems that show promise
in the bridging of local skills-gaps. These three emerging ecosystems fall within: educational
certifications, opportunity zones and innovation methodologies. And third, given the three
specific emerging ecosystems, I have identified a range of issue-area questions, worthy of
further exploration, with identified key actors that have tangible expertise across one or more
emerging ecosystems.
Before discussing how we are operationally defining interorganizational ecosystems, a
review of the literature around business ecosystems was further done. In this further review,
there are a number of different approaches to defining ecosystems. Few approaches stand out
in the literature given a lack of applicability. However, one approach that stands out, discussed
below by authors Iansiti and Levien, serves very well as a conceptual foundation. The
applicability of their approach to ecosystems will be explored in much more detail below.
21
A common view in the literature is to define an ecosystem as a network of actors around
a goal or an approach, who depend on each other for success or survival (Hartigh, 2006). A
key feature in the literature that serves as a characteristic that makes the concept around
business ecosystems different from other networks is the mutual dependence of the actors. If
one actor leaves the network, the value of the network for the other actors declines. And when
a new actor enters the network, the value of the network for all actors rises. Therefore, each
member of a business ecosystem rides both the upside and downside in terms of value if actors
enter or leave.
This stakeholder characteristic will be used within our framework of interorganizational
ecosystem. The key sectors within my framework begin with the classic private, public and
non-profit sectors. But within each of these three large sectors, there may be a number of
different organization combinations that work together around various goals. These goals may
range from economic mobility, economic development, and low unemployment to a small
skills-gap between companies and workers within a specific niche, healthy profits, or healthy
housing supply. The goal of this research is focused on is minimizing the skills-gaps between
companies and workers, ultimately enabling economic and social mobility within a certain
physical region or city at scale.
In terms of history of the business ecosystem field itself, the actual term Business
Ecosystem was made by Moore in his initial Harvard Business Review article (Moore, 1993).
This was further refined by the same author three years later in 1996 but with the additive lens
of how to navigate through enhanced leadership approaches (Moore, 1996). Authors Iansiti and
Levien took this concept of business ecosystem a bit further in a paper published in Harvard
Business Review and then in their book “The Keystone Advantage” (Iansiti and Levien, 2004).
22
Across the literature, there are clear corollaries to biology and the natural world’s
ecosystems in terms of concepts. There exist multiple partners or species that occupy and then
perform certain roles. Each partner or species depends on the other to various degrees for
success and survival. The partners and species all evolve together, some at different rates than
others, and cooperate to create and sustain a fertile environment and compete for their own
share of resources (Hartigh and Visscher, 2006).
Therefore, the operational definition I am using for the interorganizational ecosystem
replaces the species component for the particular organizational component. However, the
collaborative nature of each organization within the ecosystem, its role and relationship to
others is the same as that of the biological concept of ecosystem.
Evaluating Ecosystem Healthiness
As for the concept of “health” with respect to ecosystems, this too must be analyzed and
considered for my research purposes. This health concept is agreed in the literature to identify
something about the system’s longevity and propensity for growth. Other authors in the field
have introduced “health” as a sort of performance indicator (Iansiti and Levien, 2002).
Specifically, Iansiti and Levien made a very valuable first attempt in the field of business
ecosystems by creating not only three determinants of business ecosystem “health,” but also
providing thought around factors that make up those determinants.
See the Table 2 below for a description of this valuable contribution.
23
Table 2
Iansiti and Levien’s three determinants and factors of business ecosystem health
A. Productivity B. Robustness C. Niche Creation
(A1) Total factor productivity
(A2) Productivity
improvements
(A3) Delivery of innovations
(B1) Survival Rates
(B2) Persistence of Structure
(B3) Predictability
(B4) Limited Obsolescence
(B5) Continuity
(C1) Variety
(C2) Value Creation
According to Iansiti and Levien, the three determinants of business ecosystem health
further mean:
● Productivity - the efficiency with which an ecosystem converts inputs and outputs
● Robustness - the capability of an ecosystem to face and survive disruptions
● Niche Creation - the capacity to create meaningful diversity and therefore novel
capabilities
This is a strong foundation in the field of ecosystems and will serve as the basis
analyzing ecosystems’ general healthiness. Specifically, the determinants and factors for
interorganizational ecosystem health will be similar, yet applied to the collaboration of private,
public and non-profit sectors around a specific outcome or goal around a narrowing skills-gap to
enable economic and social mobility.
Operational Measures Across Ecosystems
In order to structure the process of doing an inventory and application of the business
ecosystem frame mentioned above in the literature to interorganizational ecosystems, the three
determinants will be used, as well as the underlying factors as an initial framework (Iansiti and
Levien, 2002). Then, the measurement of health of ecosystems will be further clarified in two
levels, to account for the concept of systems and subsystems:
24
● Across Ecosystems
● Within Ecosystems
Productivity
The three factors that contribute to productivity as formulated by Iansiti and Levien are:
total factor productivity, productivity improvement overtime and delivery of innovation.
1. (A1) “Total factor productivity: Leveraging techniques used in traditional
economic productivity analysis, ecosystems may be compared by the productivity
of their participants in converting factors of production into useful work.” (Iansiti
and Levien, 2002)
Across Ecosystems
The notion here is to serve as a barometer of efficiency on a systems level. In order to
have a sense of efficiency, there needs to be a relation between the amount of labor and capital
employed and the additional value that is created. Therefore, a concept of ROI (return on
investment) if considering capital by a collaboration or consortium is a good example. The
same concept can be applied to hours spent by a group across organizations on a key issue,
relative to the metric identified to demonstrate the outcome.
Within Ecosystems
The concept mentioned above around ROI can have a more applied meaning at the
organization level. This can be applied to any number of organizational performance ratios that
are indicators of productivity. In the private sector examples include: return on equity, employee
turnover, or even level of effort of a division given headcount.
2. (A2) “Productivity improvement over time. Do the members of the ecosystem
and those who use its products show increases in productivity measures over
25
time? Are they able to produce the same products, services or complete the
same tasks at progressively lower cost?” (Iansiti and Levien, 2002)
Across Ecosystems
The concept of productivity improvement over time is applicable to the same measures
as for “productivity” but now measured over longitudinally. For example, at a systems level, this
would mean for a collaborative or consortium of organizations working together with a goal in
mind, asking how ROI performs over a number of years. The concept here is simply applied
over time given certain data as measures over a number of years. This might look like a
number of businesses in a region that are producing a number of patents, or a collaboration that
is collectively hiring over 90% of college graduates in a particular job function.
Within Ecosystems
The concept on an organization level applies in the same way, longitudinally over time.
In our case, this might look like a certain nonprofit organization hitting key their organization’s
scorecard metrics around their mission of identifying jobs for six months for 100 residents of a
particular zip code.
3. (A3) “Delivery of innovations: Does the ecosystem effectively deliver new
technologies, processes, or ideas to its members? Does it lower the costs of
employing these novelties, as compared with adopting them directly, and
propagate access to them widely throughout the ecosystem in ways that improve
the classical productivity of ecosystem members?” (Iansiti and Levien, 2002)
Across Ecosystems
The delivery of innovations within an interorganizational ecosystem can be measured by
effectiveness of the process of sharing innovations across organizations. According to Sydow
and Windeler, the effectiveness of network processes can be measured based on the
26
relationships that companies have. More social embeddedness and more relations with others
creates opportunities for companies. Therefore, the more sophisticated the network structure is,
the less necessary the central company needs to exercise power (Sydow and Windeler, 1998).
This concept applies well to intergovernmental ecosystem health. The more sophisticated the
network structure is, the less a collaboration needs to rely on one member or organization.
Another concept here surrounds how the interorganizational ecosystem shares
exploitative and exploratory innovation strategies, products or processes. A healthy network
here will share these innovations freely and without friction for the benefit of the whole.
Within Ecosystems
The same two concepts mentioned above on social embeddedness and the sharing of
innovations applies within an organization as well. Here, a healthy organization will do this well
on its own. The organization might make sense of certain trials and errors, and then arrive at
best practices, routines or a culture in an efficient manner.
Robustness
Iansiti and Levien state five different factors that contribute to the robustness of a
business ecosystem: survival rates, persistence of ecosystem structure, predictability, limited
obsolescence and continuity of use experience and use cases (Iansiti and Levien, 2002).
1. (B1) “Survival rates: Ecosystem participants enjoy high survival rates, either over time,
or relative to other, comparable ecosystems.” (Iansiti and Levien, 2002)
Across Ecosystems
The survival rate of the interorganizational ecosystem members is someone easy to
measure. By counting the number of new organizations and companies in the
27
interorganizational ecosystem. This might look like the number of new venture capitalists,
startups, or philanthropists over a number of years.
Within Ecosystems
The survival rate of private companies can be measured by the financial status of the
company. This financial status can be an indicator of likelihood of bankruptcy or closing shop of
a startup. For an organization that is either philanthropic in nature of a traditional non-profit,
other metrics such as solvency and cash in the bank play a role.
2. (B2) “Persistence of ecosystem structure: Changes in the relationships among
ecosystem members are contained. Overall, the structure of the ecosystem is
unaffected by external shocks. Most connections between firms or between
technologies remain.” (Iansiti and Levien, 2002)
Across Ecosystems
The persistence of interorganizational ecosystem structure means the structure can
remain unchanged despite changes of partners and the relationships between them. This can
be measured by comparing data over multiple years across the organizations.
Within Ecosystems
At the organization level, this means the individual relations of an organization can be
considered around the stability and endurance of an executive or executive team within the
organization. If one or a few executives at the organization leave or transition to other roles, the
integrity of the company remains intact.
3. (B3) “Predictability: Change in ecosystem structure is not only contained, it is predictably
localized. The locus of change to ecosystem structure will differ for different shocks, but
a predictable ‘core’ will generally remain unaffected.” (Iansiti and Levien, 2002)
28
Across Ecosystems
When considering an interorganizational ecosystem, the organizations that are members
of more than one interorganizational ecosystem are more persistent. And the number of links to
other ecosystems can be an indicator overtime of the security of the interorganizational
ecosystem.
Within Ecosystems
Similarly, an executive team that operates very closely, as a seamless cluster, but with
links that ensure stability, can be an indicator that the organization will be more persistent
towards a goal while withstanding external shocks.
4. (B4) “Limited obsolescence: there is no dramatic abandonment of “obsolete” capacity in
response to a perturbation. Most of the installed base or investment in resources finds
continued use after dramatic changes in the ecosystems environment.” (Iansiti and
Levien, 2002)
Across Ecosystems
Limited obsolescence can be interpreted as the change in market share of a technology,
or the usefulness of a steadfast product or service. Are the users loyal when a new technology,
product or service competes. These differences in market share or user base can be directly
measured. This change may be the result of the diffusion of innovation or bandwagon pressure
within networks, or in this case a collaborative or public-private partnership.
Within Ecosystems
Similarly, within an organization, the same concept applies around versions of the
organization’s products, services and base of users. The health of an organization will point to
a steadfast portion of the market, target audience or community in line with the mission of the
organization.
29
5. (B5) “Continuity of experience and use cases. The experience of consumers of an
ecosystem's products will gradually evolve in response to the introduction of new
technologies rather than be radically transformed. Existing capabilities and tools will be
leveraged to perform new operations enabled by new technologies.” (Iansiti and Levien,
2002)
Across Ecosystems
The continuity of use experience and use cases within the interorganizational
ecosystem. One measure is the transition costs when moving from one technology or process
by a public-private partnership to another. Other measures might be the total amount spent on
education to build capacity within a group of organizations or labor stability among a
collaborative.
Within Ecosystems
A more specific measurement here within an organization would be the costs per
technology within an educational platform like Coursera, Udemy or Stanford GSB’s LEAD
program. This could be measured over years to provide a sense of trend data to demonstrate
health overtime.
Niche Creation
The final determinant of the health measurement according to Iansiti and Levien (2002)
is niche creation. They created two contributing factors: the variety within the business
ecosystem and the value creation.
1. (C1) “Variety: The number of new options, technological building blocks, categories,
products, and/or businesses being created within the ecosystem in a given period of
time.” (Iansiti and Levien, 2002)
30
Across Ecosystems
Multiple measurements of health here are possible at the interorganizational level. This
could look like the equality of the division of members of the organizations, the range of size of
the organization, the range of perspectives that the organizations represent, or even the range
of products or services across the organizations.
Within Ecosystems
At the organization level, health can be measured by the number of markets the product
or service of the organization serves. Concentration of products and services is usually
associated with more risk. Variety at the organization level can also take the form of the range
of partners the organization has across demographics. The wider the range the more healthy in
general.
2. (C2) “Value creation: The overall value of new options created.” (Iansiti and Levien,
2002)
Across Ecosystems
The value of newly created options here may be expressed in the total turnover of the
interorganizational ecosystem or in the impact effects of the ecosystem. The larger the number
of organizations or size of individual organizations per output unit, the less effective each
organization is in contributing to that output. Impact can be measured in a number of ways, in
particular overtime to demonstrate value creation as adoption or penetration takes hold.
Within Ecosystems
This can be measured in a number of ways: the value of new technologies to company
turnover, the equity value of a startup, etc. To conclude the literature addition and analysis, the
foundation that business ecosystems has provided has been significant. The applicability is
most directly useful of the concepts, as business and intergovernmental are compared to one
31
another. The intergovernmental ecosystem conceptual foundation has roots dating back to
1993. However, the significance of this conceptual foundation has meant a readjustment to the
approach to research and process going forward.
Systems Theory & Organizations
Up through the 1960s, the classic management school of thought looked for efficiency,
productivity and control. This school of thought dominated for decades and pursued one way to
do every task within the organization. But by the mid 1960s, the foundations of General
Systems Theory was established (Bertalanffy and Miller, 1978). Organizations up until this point
in time were viewed as machines. Systems theory represented a new way of viewing life at
work. This point of view did not have a control mindset and propagated multiple ways to
achieve goals, versus one optimal way.
It was during this era that the metaphor of the living biological organism to pursue a
richer understanding of how organizations worked. This era applied General Systems concepts
to organizational life. The systems approach progression here continued into the 1970s and
began to look at the whole organism of the organization, not the intricate pieces of the machine
(Katz and Kahn, 1978). The systems approach represented a counterpoint or reaction to the
classical approach to organizations by this point.
Open Systems
The systems approach to organizations began a relevant approach that serves as a
foundation for my model. The organizational system has three main components: inputs,
processes, and outputs. Characteristics of systems during this era include a few key tenets.
Firstly, they are open to their environment. Systems here have boundaries that are permeable,
32
engage in exchange with the environment, navigate an unpredictable environment, and
therefore have to scan that unpredictable environment (Katz and Kahn, 1978).
Holism
Another key tenet of the systems approach is the concept of holism. Here, systems
should be viewed as a whole, not a collection of separate pieces. The system in this case is
greater than the sum of its parts. Parts of the system here are interdependent and interact
through mutual feedback processes. Feedback here is a dynamic exercise where the pieces of
the whole are all interconnected (Katz and Kahn, 1978).
Interdependence
Another leading concept in the systems approach is the notion of interdependence.
Organizations here are in a dynamic, interconnected relationship with their environment. There
are subparts within the system that are interrelated, not isolated. An important concept here is
that the system is made up of interconnected subsystems. For example, within an organization,
there would be divisions, then smaller departments, then teams that are all interconnected and
may embed within one another or even overlap. Additionally, changes in one part of the
organization or system, would directly or indirectly influence other parts of the system or
organization (Katz and Kahn, 1978).
Goals
This school of thought also states that systems have goals. However, goals here are not
approached as traditional goals in the management school of thought. Goals in a system are
contingent and negotiated. Hence, it depends on what the organization is facing and must
adapt and evolve overtime and as circumstances unfold. A core concept to describe how goals
unfold is the concept of equifinality. Essentially, this concept states there is no one best way to
33
organize. And of the multiple ways of organizing that exist, there is no one route at all times.
There will be a variety of pathways to reach a destination (Katz and Kahn, 1978).
Feedback
General systems theory also addressed the role of feedback and various types of that
feedback. Negative feedback seeks to correct or reduce deviations in the processes of the
system. This is to reestablish a course that is steady in the direction of the system’s goals. And
positive feedback changes or grows a system in ways that are desired that enhance the
system’s current processes (Katz and Kahn, 1978).
Entropy
Entropy is a concept that is core to systems theory as well. The perspective has a
fundamental assumption that systems do tend to run down, deteriorate and move toward
disorganization overtime without active monitoring. Therefore, balance of the system is a key
goal. Specifically, energy, resources and information going into the system help that system
reach equilibrium, so that it does not run down on its own (Katz and Kahn, 1978).
Impact of Systems Theory
The impact of Systems Theory on me has been to establish a base vernacular and
vocabulary for thinking about ecosystems. In the literature, the impact of Systems Theory has
been more indirect in that it less so has been applied directly, and more so provided a
foundation for other other branches of research that enabled more targeted theories and
approaches. Firstly, Complex Adaptive Systems, also known as “Chaos Theory”, has been
heavily influenced by Systems Theory (Wheately, 2006). Secondly, Learning Organizations is
another school of thought that makes the case that organizations can improve and learn
overtime (Senge, 2006). And finally, Loosely Coupled Systems is a powerful array of revised
34
concepts how organizational outcomes are influenced, that was inspired by Systems Theory
(Orton and Weick, 1990).
Summary
Combining the most tangible concepts from an overview of the literature with my own
professional experience, an approach to inform the questions with interviewee participants was
constructed. Three parts of my research instrument were formed from this basis. Part 1,
establishing a set of common definitions and characteristics of ecosystems. A key reflection
given my professional experience, informed my own version of the approach to evaluate
ecosystem healthiness inspired by Iansiti and Levian. My own three components will evaluate
with interviewee participants the following approach to determine healthiness, in the following
order of anticipated importance:
3
● Productive - The capability of an ecosystem to grow, innovate and continuously
improve.
● Resilience - The capability of an ecosystem to prevent, withstand and recover from
disruptions.
● Enabling Value Exchange - Each participant and sector of that ecosystem freely
exchanges value.
Part 2 included examples of healthy as well as unhealthy ecosystems in the form of
geographic regions or cities. And Part 3, a perspective on final thoughts to ascertain the most
important concepts and ways to communicate, in addition to forward looking advice to workers,
firms and policymakers that aspire to better understand healthy ecosystems.
3
Informed by both my own professional experience, as well as Iansiti and Levien’s approach.
35
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the approach taken, methods used, and
considerations for engaging in this research. Using a qualitative design, establishing a
qualitative grounded theory to determine a healthy ecosystem was the approach taken. Given
the complex nature of ecosystem indicators, definitions, boundaries, inputs, outputs, and best
practices of workers, firms and policymakers, establishing a “retrofit” model though grounded
theory was chosen. Grounded theory allows for the researcher to take the views of participants
through interviews and derive a general, abstract theory of a process, action or interaction
(Cresswell and Cresswell, 2018). In particular, the refinement and interrelationship of various
codes, themes and categories was understood to be a key component of achieving success by
answering the key research questions (Cresswell and Cresswell, 2018).
In this chapter, a detailed overview of the methods taken will be discussed. Specifically,
the research question, methodology selected, study participants, data collection, procedures
followed, data analysis, trustworthiness, ethical concerns and research limitations will be
addressed.
Research Question
One fundamental central question was sought at the outset of this research. To arrive at
the proper central question, a series of iterative thought exercises occurred to determine the
36
best way to explore the central phenomenon or concept in this study (Cresswell and Cresswell,
2018). A key consideration here was to not limit the views of the participants in my questioning.
This included not showing possible answers or too detailed approaches when initially
addressing the question through the research instrument slide, as presented to the participant.
The intention here was to truly explore the general and complex set of factors around a central
phenomenon. Then, the goal and challenge would be to present the wide, rich and diverse
perspectives and meanings from the participants into a format where common themes could be
identified (Cresswell and Cresswell, 2018).
Central Question
1. What is the definition of a healthy ecosystem?
Subsequent Questions
2. What are the main inputs of a healthy ecosystem?
3. What are any byproducts of a healthy ecosystem?
4. How might we assess if an ecosystem is healthy or not?
As for subsequent questions, the goal was to not have more than twelve additional
questions, in addition to the central question. The goal with the above three subsequent
questions was to best determine the functionality and phenomenon around ecosystems in a
more focused way, that still left room for open questioning and robust discussion (Cresswell and
Cresswell, 2018). The single phenomenon or concept of the research surrounded healthy
ecosystems. Specifically, not worrying initially about why they exist or how they engage with
their environment, but truly only “what” a healthy ecosystem definition entails.
37
As a result of the above approach to the central and subsequent questions, an interview
instrument was constructed. Ten questions were created that fell within three main parts: Part
1 - definitions and characteristics, Part 2 - ecosystem examples, and Part 3 - final thoughts.
Interview Instrument Questions
The following questions were created to guide discussion with interview participants:
1. What is the general definition of any ecosystem?
2. How does the definition of ecosystem change, as it relates to workers and employers
within a given geography?
3. What is the “scope” of an ecosystem?
4. With regard to the mitigation of skills-gaps, how does the definition of ecosystem
change?
5. What are the key characteristics or indicators that make a “healthy” ecosystem?
6. Which factors help evaluate the “healthiness” of an ecosystem?
a. Productive
b. Resilience
c. Enables value exchange
7. Two parts:
a. What are the best examples of healthy ecosystems within specific geographies?
b. Within healthy ecosystems, what aspects of that system’s story makes it healthy?
i. What do the most healthy ecosystems do to mitigate low supply?
ii. What do the most healthy ecosystems do to mitigate a lack of mobility?
iii. What do the most healthy ecosystems do to mitigate information
asymmetry?
38
8. Two parts:
a. What are the best examples of unhealthy ecosystems within specific
geographies?
b. Within unhealthy ecosystems, what aspects of that system’s story makes it
unhealthy?
i. What do the most unhealthy ecosystems do to mitigate low supply?
ii. What do the most unhealthy ecosystems do to mitigate a lack of mobility?
iii. What do the most unhealthy ecosystems do to mitigate information
asymmetry?
9. Which aspects of understanding healthy ecosystems are most important for others to
understand the concept going forward?
10. How might workers, firms and policymakers best enable the development and
sustainment of healthy ecosystems?
This research instrument was translated into a powerpoint format and the slides were
shown via a screen share function on the Zoom video conference platform. The powerpoint
slides themselves are displayed in the Appendix: Research Instrument at the end of this
dissertation.
Methodology Selected - Qualitative Grounded Theory
At a fundamental level, a qualitative study was best in this case given the need to
approach understanding the phenomenon around healthy ecosystems from approaches out of
fields including: anthropology, sociology and the humanities (Cresswell and Creswell, 2018).
However, it became quickly apparent for the need to pursue the approach given through
39
Grounded Theory in order to identify any “retrofit” model resulting from themes identified from
discussions with interview participants. It is this “retrofit” model that will serve as the goal to
help answer the central and subsequent questions.
Given the evolving nature of the future of work conversation around understanding what
a healthy ecosystem definition entails, grounded theory was chosen as a practical approach.
Given the need to add flavor and perspectives from professionals with decades of experience to
the conversation with a nuance that does not exist in the current literature given frontline
application and use of scalable technology, grounded theory fits very well (Charmaz, 2014).
As the researcher, my own professional experience relates to the topic in three distinct
ways. First, my professional development experience with professionals is extensive across
private and public sectors, multiple industries and job functions within those industries for over
20 years. Client work entailed both establishing professional development programs for
companies as well as personalized professional development consulting for individuals aiming
for promotions, returning to graduate school, or looking to execute career pivots.
Second, my executive education experience with the Stanford Graduate School of
Business launch of the LEAD Program in Corporate Innovation provides me with unique
frontline experience at the forefront of online education for executives. The experience is
designed to be remote and immersive. The makeup of each cohort encompasses mid-career
professionals from 10 - 30 years of experience across industry, function and country.
Third, my learning and development professional experience as Director of Learning for
FUSE Corps, a U.S. based social enterprise dedicated to enabling private sector mid-career
executives solve challenging public sector challenges at the city, county and state level provides
a rich experience. This work entailed understanding best practices and frameworks more
40
applicable to solving organizational, human capital, strategic, and operational challenges at the
executive level within government, utilizing proven approaches from the private sector. As a
result of these three components of my professional experience, I am qualified to engage,
facilitate and carry out this research.
Finally, I do not possess any conflicts of interest with interview participants. At no point
during the research, did I have a direct reporting relationship, client relationship or exchange of
gifts with any of the subjects. Each subject was identified through professional interactions and
a shared desire to enable the practice, professional exchanges and interactions through
academic, non-profit and private sector networks.
The Twelve Study Participants
In terms of areas of expertise of the interview participants, they ranged across private,
public and nonprofit sectors. From the private sector, eight participants had a range of various
types of experience very relevant to providing insights to components of this research. It is
important to note that more participants who were currently working in the private sector at the
time of the interview, actually had prior professional experience in either the public sector or
nonprofit sector earlier in their careers. Therefore, I felt more comfortable having more of the
interview participants as currently classified as private sector representation.
Among those currently within the private sector, the experience and lens each provided
ranged across a number of areas of expertise, industries and functions. Two of the individuals
worked within investment platforms that allocate private equity and venture capital to education
platforms designed to address pressing skills-matching challenges at scale. One of the
individuals is the Chief Executive Officer of a management consulting firm employing over 35
41
consultants, all with the unique feature of managing a remote workforce. Three individuals
operate in the civic design and innovation space through innovating design firms, where their
clients range from workforce development agencies within large cities, mayoral offices
attempting to design community convenings around job access, to private sector companies
attempting to implement internal cultural change around ensuring each professional’s skills are
being matched and developed well relative to needs of the business. The final two individuals
worked at designated nonprofits. The first, as Chief Executive Officer of a nationwide
organization with a mandate to secure educational pathways to disadvantaged youth and high
schoolers. The second, holds a role as Managing Director of the online division of a leading
business school’s executive education offering.
In terms of the approach taken to recruit interview participants, I took an organized
approach to access my professional network. In some cases, I already had the contact
information of the target participant. In other cases, I had to secure the contact information
through a mutual past colleague. In all cases, an initial email was sent providing an update on
my professional interests and sharing the potential contribution to practice of this research.
From the initial outbound contact with 13 individuals, 12 of them were ultimately interviewed, a
92% success ratio. The interviews themselves were conducted from March, 12th 2020 through
April 17th, 2020.
My professional network was accessed in order to take an initial survey of potential
targets, ranges across industry and function. In terms of industries I have worked in previously,
these include: the military through the United States Navy, corporate finance as an investment
banker with Merrill Lynch, private equity operations focused on healthcare through Pacific
Pulmonary Services, client based learning and development consulting services through Onida,
42
executive education through the Stanford Graduate School of Business, organization based
learning and development through FUSE Corps, and most recently sales readiness through
LinkedIn. My career up to this point spans over 26 years. As a result, I was able to target key
individuals who both had the expertise, lens, and likelihood of a positive response when asked
for contribution to this research.
Data Collection - Virtual Interviews
In terms of interview approach, it was important to ensure a balance with a number of
factors. First, it was important to be accommodating with the significant demands on their time.
Therefore, from initial contact, the goal was to acknowledge this and ask only for a 60-90 minute
virtual interview through the desktop application version of a popular virtual meeting platform,
Zoom. Second, it was critical to share with them why their unique expertise would be
4
compelling towards the contribution of practice around definitions and key characteristics of
healthy ecosystems that narrow skills-gaps. And finally, it was very important throughout the
interview itself, to not overly guide or bias their answers given my own professional experience
or lens.
To accomplish the third point above, much care was devoted to creating a visually
appealing powerpoint deck, reflecting the research instrument questions as well as key
definitions (Appendix, Research Instrument). However, the order in which the questions were
posed reflected a very intentional goal at the outset to begin wide through establishing a base
understanding of the core concept of our discussion around ecosystems. Then, over time,
getting more narrow in scope, to help hone thoughts and unpack key concepts.
4
The goal was also to be able to address each question within 60 - 90 minutes, through a remote audio
conversation.
43
Extensive steps were taken to ensure anonymity of the interview participant. Each
interview was conducted so that during recording, no identifying information was captured that
would indicate who the participant was. This ask of not using identifying language during the
recorded portion of the interview, as well as IRB informed consent form helped ensure a level of
comfort around data privacy with participants.
Procedures Followed Through IRB
An IRB approval process was sought and taken to ensure the safety of the interview
participants as well as integrity of the interview results. The IRB application to the University of
Southern California (“USC”) Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) was submitted in January 2020.
An “exempt” level and status was sought and the case was made that my research approach
with subjects represented a “minimal risk” and would de-identify interviewees. Approval by
5
IRB of the “exempt” status was awarded also in February 2020. The USC follows the principles
of the Belmont Report for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral
research.
6
After approval by IRB, initial contact made by the investigator to the 13 targeted
professionals in my network that I had identified in order to determine interest and willingness of
participating in the study. Once I had a positive response that the targeted participant was
interested and willing, I sent them a virtual meeting call time, per their communicated availability
over the subsequent two weeks for the 60-90 minute interview. A calendar invite via Google
calendar was then emailed to the willing participant as a “hold” to the email address of their
5
The University of Southern California IRB Levels of Review include: Full Board, Expedited, and Exempt.
Full definitions can be found here: https://oprs.usc.edu/irb-review/types-of-irb-review/
6
This research engaged in behavioral research as defined in the Belmont Report which can be found on
hhs.gov here:
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
44
choice. This calendar “hold” included the zoom link. The zoom account used is in my primary
name and I am the only individual who has had host privileges which can manipulate settings
and the user experience. In order to maintain a professional approach to best practices and
protocol for virtual meetings, I ensured each willing participant knew there was a waiting room
option in case they logged on early, as well as an option to join audio via phone in case internet
connection at their location experienced bandwidth issues.
Within one day of scheduling, I sent a reminder calendar notification and email to ensure
the time still worked for the participant. Additionally, 24 hours prior to the meeting or call time, I
emailed the Informed Consent form in advance for their electronic signature (Appendix: IRB
Approved Informed Consent Form). A software platform named docusign was used to capture
both signatures of the participant and myself. These documents were stored on a secure server
with 2 factor authentication to ensure security. The signed version of the document was saved
in PDF form and emailed immediately to the participant for their own records prior to the 60-90
minute interview.
I as the investigator anonymized the name, role and title of the participant for storage of
the data on a server with 2 factor authentication. Interviews were conducted virtually through a
video conference technology platform called Zoom. The platform functionality allows for a
screen sharing function which was used to share the powerpoint version of the research
questions (Appendix: Research Instrument). The zoom recording platform recorded audio files
for each participant. I then used a technology platform named rev.com to transcribe the audio
to typed Word document formatted files. Within 30 days of each interview, I shared with each
participant the transcribed version of our interview to help establish validity and reliability. I
asked each participant to please read the transcript of our conversation to ensure it accurately
45
reflected our conversation. All participants agreed and did not request changes to any part of
their transcripts.
I conducted each interview from my home office in Marin County, California. My
personal MacBook Pro laptop was used to navigate the recording and Zoom controls as I
conducted each interview. Ten participants engaged in the interview from their home offices as
well. Two of the 12 participants conducted their interviews from their respective work locations.
Throughout each interview, I allowed for the possibility of conversations to go deeper, per the
original prompt, where the subjects used industry jargon or a concept that was unclear. Further,
I allowed each participant to talk as freely as possible until they felt they did not have any
additional perspective or nuance to provide given the prompt.
However, during question 8 (a) and 8 (b), some participants reported that they did not
feel they had expertise enough to comment (Appendix: Research Instrument). Therefore, for
the sake of time and ensuring Part 3 of the Research Instrument was properly explored, I
managed most interviews quickly through to question 9 in order to pursue rich data and
perspective going forward. More information here will be explored in the following Chapter 4:
Data Analysis.
Throughout each interview, I took notes in a Google doc from my own computer in order
to highlight key concepts and notes to myself to refer to at a later point in time. These insights
were mostly minor definitions, and terms to further research for my own benefit to properly
appreciate the concept the participant was expanding upon. Each interview participant was
7
promptly thanked for their time at the conclusion of each interview. Additionally, a follow up
7
An example here is an interview participant that mentioned the Co-Founder of FUSE Corps Lenny
Mendonca had been known offering Progressive Federalism as a potential solution to various Future of
Work problems.
https://dastardlycleverness.com/lenny-mendonca-progressive-federalism-may-be-the-answer-to-americas
-problems/
46
email thanking the participant for their time was sent within 24 hours post interview. However,
no gifts at any point were given to the interview participants either before or after the interview.
Data Analysis and Coding Approach
In terms of analyzing the data, a multi-facets process was taken to establish themes,
trends and analyze conclusions. Each transcript which was held in the form of a Word document
after software from Rev.com transcribed each Zoom file was safely stored and then formatted to
coded appropriately. The process for qualitative coding I followed entailed multiple steps
including: organizing and preparing the data, reading all the data, coding the data, generating
descriptions and themes, and representing those descriptions and themes (Cresswell and
Cresswell, 2018).
Open coding approaches were taken as an initial step. Line by line reading was done
for each interview transcript in order to understand the concepts and potential categories. This
granular approach then led to selective coding which entailed identifying categories and
sub-categories that emerged after open coding granular approach. Finally, my analysis
transitioned into theoretical coding after a number of iterations (Charmaz, 2014). This final
approach was relied upon in order to identify a sound “retrofit” model which will be discussed in
the Summary of Chapter 4: Data Analysis, as well as implications for various workers, firms and
policymakers in Chapter 5: Contribution to Practice.
Trustworthiness
A number of different approaches were taken in this study to ensure trustworthiness and
validity. First, I ensured each subject had relevant expertise to provide a unique and qualified
47
lens to the central and subsequent research questions. The participants had an average of
more than 20 years of professional experience across more than one sector. All participants
had at least one of the following titles: Co-Founder, Vice President, Managing Director, Director,
Special Advisor to the Mayor, Chief Executive Officer, Managing Partner and President. And
each organization, city, company or university the participant held their position with is known
for their innovative work or approaches in the following spaces: workforce development,
management consulting, business school executive education, economic development,
innovation, private equity and venture capital.
In terms of analysis, a constant comparative approach was taken at each step of coding
the transcripts. The iterative approach entailed comparing each interview subjects’ response to
each other. Common vernacular, concepts, and divergences were noted and used to identify
categorical themes for further coding. (Cresswell and Cresswell, 2018). Authenticity was further
established by sharing with each interview participant the transcript and reminding them for any
adjustments if a concept or words chosen were not as they remember discussing. Additionally,
a window of time was given, 60 days, to the participants to access their transcripts to help
ensure its accuracy per the interview conducted.
Finally, in terms of manual coding, this was done through the creation of a google sheet
form and each subject’s response was revisited at least three times to ensure proper coding.
The output of the manual coding can be found in the Appendix: Coded Data & Results.
Ethical Concerns
Regarding ethical aspects of the study, the IRB Review Board process was pursued, in
addition to additional measures taken to ensure the safety of the participants above and beyond
48
the IRB process. Each Informed Consent form (Appendix: IRB Approved Informed Consent
Form) was provided more than 24 hours in advance of the interview. Communication to each
participant prior to signing the document attempted to make it clear to ask me any and all
questions about anything unclear in the Informed Consent form itself.
Regarding risks to the participants, three existed which I have acknowledged and should
be taken into consideration when analyzing this research: bias of results, breach of
confidentiality and conflicts of interest. Regarding bias, there does exist a small risk that the
results, answers to questions and information provided by participants have been impacted by
the environment. Specifically, these risks include: the current news cycle, current economic
climate, participant organizational dynamics, the surrounding environment (e.g. COVID-19), the
time of day of the interview, and perhaps even the order of questions asked.
Regarding the potential breach of confidentiality, there does exist a small risk that the
identity of a participant becomes known. This risk is mitigated by taking measures to anonymize
the data in such a way where any identifying cross information is not housed in the same
sub-folder. Additionally, two-part multifactor authentication security settings have been
implemented on all technology platforms participant data interacts with. Finally, in terms of
conflict of interest, although no current professional relationship or gifts were experienced or
given between myself and the participants at the time of the research, a professional
relationship nonetheless exists through similar industry, organization type, and industry function.
However, this risk may always exist, steps were taken to minimize this dynamic on the interview
participant responses by reminding them that no current professional relationship exists prior to
conducting the interview.
49
Research Limitations
A number of limitations to this research do exist. The top three limitations include: the
number of times a particular keyword exists within and across responses may not mean what
we think, the limitations of each interview from a time standpoint could mean that additional
insight or conflicting perspectives would have emerged, and various business considerations of
the participant may have influenced their particular outlook on the day of the interview. Each
one of these three limitations are factors that should be taken into account when analyzing the
conclusions of this research.
Summary
The goal of this chapter was to outline and share the approach taken to research
methodology in this study. The chapter began by highlighting the research questions, the
methodology selected, context around the study participants, the approach taken on data
collection, the procedures actually followed, the analysis approach of the data, how
trustworthiness was pursued, highlighting ethical concerns, and finally acknowledging limitations
of the research.
In the following Chapter 4: Analysis of Data, the research instrument will be further
described. The top results from each question within the research instrument will be shared and
described. Data visualization of the results will be shared to help appreciate the magnitude of
categories with respect to each other. Paradigms, philosophies and assumptions that underpin
the study will be described. Themes, both similar and conflicting, will be discussed. The chapter
will then end on particular insights, surprises and conclusions of the results that support the
creation of the “retrofit” model for defining healthy ecosystems.
50
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
In this chapter, the data is explored and I provide an overview of the conclusions. By the
end of the chapter, overall conclusions, surprises and insights will be shared. Ultimately, both
the “retrofit” model of inputs to a healthy ecosystem that narrows skills-gaps and a means of
evaluating outcomes of that ecosystem for healthiness will be shared. Throughout this chapter,
I would begin with general trends, describe the approach taken to the instrument and research
interviews, and specific insights for each interview coded results.
In order to arrive at both specific conclusions and general thematic observations, a
number of iterations were conducted. The process entailed revising the codes, confirming
patterns, unpacking conflicting sentiments, and then arriving at a means to display the data
visually in a manner that describes the ultimate conclusion around that particular relationship
and phenomenon.
8
General Trends Within Data
A number of insights were identified across the data. First, the phenomena around what
an ecosystem is was established. Common characteristics across responses landed on specific
dynamics what is most relevant to understanding key criteria for what an ecosystem is and is
not. Common language was used and similar concepts discussed around the “scope” or
boundary of an ecosystem as well. Finally, similar aspects of ecosystem behavior was
8
Please refer to the tables specifically highlighted in the Summary of this chapter.
51
described as well. This will be further discussed in the summary of the chapter and visually
described through a graphic.
Second, at the outset of the research process, it was unclear regarding the directional
relationship between factors as inputs and indicators to assess outcomes among healthy
ecosystems. However, by the end of the 12 interviews, and a thorough analysis iterating back
and forth between transcripts, quotes and codes, a directional relationship was confirmed
between factors as inputs and indicators as a means of assessing outcomes of a healthy
ecosystem. In other words, factors and inputs are granular levers that ecosystems may pull in
order to walk towards healthiness eventually. And the indicators assessing outcomes, take a
holistic view of that ecosystem. It would be very difficult for ecosystems to pull the levers of the
outputs, and attempt to back into moving indicators in a positive direction.
Research Instrument Interview Approach
As for the approach taken to the research instrument itself, significant thought was given
to ensure measured cognitive load of information on the interview participant. The approach
taken was to only have basic and key information on the powerpoint slide, as a visual display,
per question (See Appendix: Research Instrument). This meant plenty of white space and a
visually appealing color scheme in line with the school colors of USC. Additionally, page
numbers, font choice and font size were taken into consideration to instill a pleasant viewing
experience.
Regarding the flow and strategy of the interview questions themselves, the approach
taken was to ensure the conversation build naturally, with terms established up front as a
baseline. Once the baseline foundation of the conversation was established (e.g. starting with
52
Question 1, in your own words, how would you generally define any ecosystem?), layers of
more specifics and nuances could be built on top of the conversation after establishing an
anchor definition up front. The same approach was taken with each individual concept the
research attempted to explore in order to help best understand potential answers to the central
and subsequent research questions.
Please refer to the Appendix: Coded Data & Results for the detail of the manual codes
by category and subject. The approach taken to achieve the summary output tables that follow
per question entailed sums of each positive code per category across the interview participants,
labeled “subject #.” After each output was created with the sums per category, a sort was done
to rank each category in descending order. This enabled the determination of the most
important ranking category to be seen clearly, relative to the second most important, and so on.
My approach also took into account all major themes and applied codes to those themes. This
process began in some cases, with 12 categories per question. Iterations were implemented in
order to establish the most common and cross cutting categories across themes, in order to
produce a smaller number of categories. This enabled a total number to serve as the
denominator. And the numerator became the category itself. The result is a reasonable number
of categories for coding in qualitative research, displayed in rank order (Cresswell and
Cresswell, 2018).
Question 1 - Data Results
To establish an anchor in the interview conversation, the goal with question one, was to
establish a baseline definition of ecosystem. It was important to allow this discussion to not be
bound and become as broad a definition as the subject felt comfortable using. The goal was to
53
not be bound, if a subject thought of ecosystems firstly as a biological metaphor, engine
metaphor, etc. It was important to establish a tone up front that the conversation could go truly
where the subject feels it needs to head, in order to most accurately describe their position,
experience and sophisticated nuances of the characteristics what makes an ecosystem an
ecosystem.
As you can see from Table 1 below, the most common category was that an ecosystem
involved interdependencies. The second most common category was that ecosystems are
multilayered. And the third most common characteristic across ecosystems was that they all felt
like a community. Rounding out the top five, in order were two categories: an ecosystem is
dynamic as opposed to static, and a true ecosystem has a diverse array of participants within
that ecosystem. Beyond the top five categories, the responses fell below 10% of total
responses.
Table 3
Question 1: What is the general definition of any ecosystem?
54
In order to truly appreciate the top categories, please see below three direct quotes from
interview participants that illuminate the data. The following quote provides color around the
concept of interdependencies:
So when I use the word ecosystem, certainly in our work, we're thinking of those people
who are interconnected and dependent on each other for success. There are other
things that operate inside those ecosystems, they can be forces or factors that are
outside of their control that can be disruptive. But really, we also use languages like
value web to think about an ecosystem, so that is who are the people who are
interconnected and dependent on each other to create and deliver and consume value?
And that could be in the social or the corporate or the public sector space, it's not
exclusive to a commercial sense of value. That's how we tend to think about the
ecosystem. Who matters to your success, who does your success matter to, and then
who matters to those people? And how are they connected, and how does value and
pain and friction manifest itself, and how do you work through that to reduce or eliminate
it?
9
The following second quote provides insight into the multi-layered category:
Ecosystem to me it's basically it's a landscape like a collective of different kinds of
players in a certain field, a certain topic. Each player would have or categories of players
would have different roles kind of in their value chain, if you will, in terms of how to
create value in this domain. And of course, usually these categories would... there's
some levels that usually that infrastructure players that everybody just need them to
define overall rules or regulations or maybe just underlying systems that everybody can
tap into. And then probably some middle layer. And then individual categories of players,
how they add value to the whole system. Yeah. So I guess certainly the players and then
of course the dynamics as well. Well ranging from, overarching policies or rules and
governing the whole system and that's usually what I at least start thinking about in
terms of an ecosystem.
10
And the third quote below, speaks to the concept of community:
Any ecosystem? I mean ... I would define any ecosystem as one of stability, one of
balance. One of a flow between the different actors or individuals or component pieces.
You know, I ... fundamentally I always think of the diagrams from elementary school
when they would show the fungi growing in the ground with the birds coming in to eat the
grass that would fly and disperse seeds and there was this, sort of, circularity to it and a
mutualistic, sort of, structure in that every component piece, every element, is somehow
9
From a private sector interview participant who is a Co-Founder of a consulting firm that has engaged
with corporations, governments, and nonprofit clients for over 25 years.
10
From a public sector interview participant currently serving as Special Advisor the Mayor of a large city
within California.
55
directly connected to the outputs and impact and actions of the other pieces of that, so
whether you're talking about processes, whether you're talking about organization
structure, whether you're talking about community from an individual standpoint or
whether you're talking about a business ecosystem ... in my mind, when i think of an
ecosystem, it's about the specific functions and deliberate areas of focus of the different
component pieces and how they interplay with each other and how that, then, ties into,
sort of, this complete capture of what this overall functioning ecosystem is.
11
Question 2 - Data Results
By the second question in the interviews, a foundation had been set with an
understanding of how that participant defines ecosystems. The second question aimed to
discover how the participant would refine their definition of ecosystem, with the added constraint
now of relating it to workers and employers within a given region, versus simply a biologic
metaphor. The responses to question 2, equally weighted categories around ecosystems that
possessed both actively hiring employers and workers who were actively seeking. The next
most common category addressed a theme of diversity. And this definition of diversity applied
across the board, so truly diversity in a very broad sense (e.g. by industry, services, products,
worker type, employer type, more loosely thinking about place, etc). This represented a
common theme around challenging the place concept, however it was usually tied to a concept
of diversity.
Table 4
Question 2: How would you refine your definition of ecosystem, as it relates to workers and
employers within a given geography?
11
From a private sector interview participant who is a Managing Partner of a civic innovation with clients
across public and nonprofit sector for over 15 years.
56
In order to appreciate the interview participants’ points of view, please see the following
direct quotes. The first, addresses the categories of workers and employers:
I think, within an ecosystem, employers, workers, it's that same theme, but maybe it's
just kind of more refined about who those players are. So obviously you have the
employers who are hiring, thinking about those pieces, you have workers both who are
there, who are kind of looking, but also to you may have entities outside of it. That could
be the education providers. As employers are looking to hire new workers. It could be
workforce development boards as think about different training for people who are
displaced and looking for different jobs. It could play a part about what the different
needs and the changing economy that's taking place.
12
The following quote address the more loose definition offered around diversity and place:
About the universe in terms of kind of broadly speaking in other firms. Then I think as
you break that down, there may be sort of ecosystems or sub ecosystems within that. So
maybe I work for a particular company and we're headquartered in a particular place,
and so within that we start to create some sub ecosystems. So it might be
geographically-based say, it's everybody working for this organization in the city of Los
Angeles, for example. Or it might be actually, so that's one way I think in some ways of
traditionally doing it. The one thing where I get a little bit of dissonance is where it could
also be defined... geography could also mean things like function, right? So we're the
internal sales division or we're the external sales division or we're X product line or X
service line. So there could be... so I look at the terms of in that way is how you define
geography as being either place-based or functional-based, or some other way of kind of
giving people a sense of coherence.
12
This interview participant serves as a Vice President and venture capitalist identifying scalable
education platforms.
57
Finally, an illuminating quote that speaks to the role of needs. This was addressed as part of
the hierarchies, the spectrum of those who are advantaged and those who are not, theme:
Yeah, I think one of the big issues is there are these invisible people in ecosystems. My
wife... Again we're in the Bay Area, but my wife works in a poor school district in a rural
farming community that's 30 minutes from Silicon Valley. But these are kids who are the
children of undocumented workers, and are suffering trauma and anxiety at the
economic level, at the political level, at the social level.
13
Question 3 - Data Results
By this point in the interviews, their definition of ecosystem was established, as well as
engaging in an exercise of narrowing that definition. The third question here, simply asked the
interview participants what the “scope” of an ecosystem is. This particular question was most
likely the prompt that elicited the most abstract, challenging, yes robust and rich conversation in
Part 1 of the interviews. The top two categories in the coded responses included Dependency
Acknowledgement and Expandable to Identify Problems and Solutions. The third most common
category surrounded the concept of multi-layered system being a lens for helping to identify
scope or boundaries. Please see the table below for the ranked categories.
Table 5
Question 3: What is the “scope” of an ecosystem?
13
This participant served as a Director within the Economic Development agency of a Midwestern city.
58
A few key quotes to help illuminate these abstract discussions follow. Highlighting the
category of Dependency Acknowledgement is the following quote:
Yeah, I mean the way we tend to think of those sorts of ecosystems is it’s a funny place
to start from, but you start from what the pain is, or the problem or the friction in a
system. And the scope works its way out, not exactly concentric circle but ripples its way
through everybody. Just like I talked about this idea of a value web and who’s
connected. If you think about it as a pain web, who are the people who are connected
and who are affected by this, and what’s the full extent of it? In our work, when we talk
about people in an ecosystem we start with our clients by identifying who matters most
to you, and who do you matter most to? Who matters most to those people who matter
most to you? And then think about... We actually do these pain scapes, what does the
pain scape look like, how intense, how broad, how deep is it, and is there an opportunity
to address it in a meaningful way? So the value creation is the reduction or elimination of
the pain across that landscape.
14
The following quote illuminates the notion of an ecosystem having an active ability to
identify and address problems through solutions:
The example that I always throw out, where I feel like I get these shocked looks, is
Netflix. Netflix in 20 years, three completely different businesses. Right? So, this ability
to be able to learn, and to learn really fast, and to be humble, and to have some grit, I
just don't ... The teamwork component. I think the universities aren't necessarily as
connected to the pace of change that's happening, and so there's a skills gap, and then
there's also a gap on how to build those skills that's not ... What I worry about is that the
skills aren't there, and then I think maybe even more concerning to me is the expectation
isn't being set, and so then kids are getting angry when they're like, "Wait a second. I
14
From a private sector interview participant who is a Co-Founder of a consulting firm that has engaged
with corporations, governments, and nonprofit clients for over 25 years.
59
thought if I mastered computer science, I'd be fine." No. That's not the case, which that
has long-term implications for society.
15
The category addressing Multi-layered components to help understand the “scope” of an
ecosystem can be seen well in the following perspective:
Yeah. God, that's a great question. I mean, the first thing that comes to my mind is, sort
of, like an inverted cylinder almost, right? So the point is on the bottom and then it, you
know, it widens out as you go up and, you know, the hyper focus at the point, at the
bottom, is the local. The more that the proximity to, say, an individual so you start at, like,
the individual level and then, maybe, bump it up the next sort of level, if you will, on a
cylinder to say household and then, you know, the next level up would be, say,
neighborhood. And then the next level up would be, you know, maybe city and that's
when you start to fold in and introduce those other elements of work and employment
and those other externalities that start to, then, fold into it. And then you go up to, like,
say the county and the regional level and then a state level and then a national level and
then a ... on a global standpoint and as it, you know, you go out another, sort of, degree
of width or ... you go up a level, it becomes wider and there are more ... there's more
complexity to it. There are more component pieces. So, it's a degree of complexity. If
you take it at the bottom of the cylinder, it's one individual and that's their ecosystem.
The ecosystem of one. How do I eat, breathe, sleep? How do I, you know, exercise?
How do I think of that? And then with each level, you know, when you get to the very top
of the cylinder you're talking about, you know, global complexity, interconnected
economies, and, you know, public health and things along those lines.
16
Question 4 - Data Results
By this point in the interview conversation, across all interview participants, an
appreciation of how challenging it is to simply define an ecosystem was acknowledged. The
highlighting the challenge of how to continue to focus the thinking on narrowing skills-gaps
between workers and employers was the point of Question 4. Across all participants, the top
two answers were equally weighted across the notion of identification as the first step.
Identification of gaps and needs by the employers on key new functions and skills needed within
15
From a private sector interview participant who is a Managing Partner of a civic innovation with clients
across public and nonprofit sector for over 15 years.
16
From a public sector interview participant currently serving as Special Advisor the Mayor of a large city
within California.
60
new roles. And on the worker side, ensuring they have the ability to identify their own
skills-gaps as a starting point, in order to be more competitive in an existing or new marketplace
whether re-skilling up-skilling.
17
It is worth noting that the top five responses all represented at least 14.8% of the total
response categories. This means there was a more equal distribution of the top categories than
some other questions experienced where a cliff from double down to single digit category
representation was more pronounced and seen much sooner in the categorization of themes
thought coding exercises. Moreover, this also means that there was more consensus
throughout agreed upon themes and categories.
Table 6
Question 4: With regard to the mitigation of skills-gaps, how does the definition of ecosystem
change?
As for a direct quote that highlights very well the gap identification challenges by both
employer and work, please see the following:
You have the different education providers who need to be able to one provide
individuals with kind of the holistic support of what they may need, but also be
responsive to the acute skills in hiring processes that that companies need, because at
the end of the day you can argue with the purpose of education, but if you can't put a
17
My definition here is re-skilling is focused on establishing new skills, while up-skills focuses on updating
existing skills.
61
roof over your head and support your family the whole idea of being kind of a well
rounded citizen goes out the window.
18
The hierarchy of skills by managers, professionals and those with basic skills within firms
was directly spoken to through the following insight:
So there are some definite skills gaps that we could speak to in an ecosystem, and I find
this to be universally true no matter what the pain scape is you're looking at, and what
the sector is you're looking at, what the industry is you're looking at. But one of the things
that's really interesting to us... And I tend to use language that is borrowed from the
commercial sector but I do think it applies broadly, so you have to think of what are the
synonyms for these? Within any node in that ecosystem or any node in that network,
there will be gaps that exist from the executive, the managerial, and the practitioner
level. So, people are having to make executive decisions about where they're going to
put resources, what is prioritized, how they're going to manage things. There are big
holes in terms of their ability to address things in a systematic way. At the management
level, there's a lack of skills to manage projects or initiatives that have great uncertainty
among them, and if you're trying to address a pain, if you're doing something that's
actually about solving a problem in a new way, or a problem that has not been
addressed before, then you're going to start with huge uncertainty. Managers don't
actually have good tools for managing in uncertainty, and they don't understand the
information or the criteria that the executive is needing to make fact-based or informed
decisions. And practitioners actually don't have good mental models or processes in
place to move their innovation or new solutions from stage of hypothesis to something
that's fully developed and operational, nor do they understand when the things they're
working on are deprioritized, why they might be, or why resources are limited or not
flowing to the work that they're doing. So in these ecosystems you end up with a lot of
tensions that exist that come from misalignment, big gaps misunderstanding, a tendency
to jump to the conclusion that people are conspiring against you rather than
inadvertently working against you. And so as you start to look at skills gaps, what ends
up happening in an ecosystem is you have this pocketing effect where certain things can
get done to a certain point, and then they fail. So that could be at that practitioner level,
people doing the work on a day today basis, at that managerial level and at that
executive level. And there are so many gaps, or so many pockets that are misaligned,
that it's incredibly challenging to take something from a stage of hypothesis. We think
that this is a pain, we think that we can validate it, we think it's deep enough, profound
enough, that people will value resolving it. We think there's a solution to it, we think it's
feasible to deliver that solution. We think that, again, that there will be value, and that
people will be able to adapt the new solution, that that's possible for them to switch from
whatever their current situation is to this new thing, and we think that the value makes it
18
From a private sector interview participant with over 30 years of experience delivering innovative
solutions to private companies, governments and non-profit organizations.
62
worth doing, worth investing in. Whether that's, again, social currency or economic currency or
political currency, or whatever kind of capital you're going to talk about. So, there's fragmentation.
As I think about it, the skills gap fills your ecosystem full of really deep potholes that make it
incredibly difficult to navigate and move forward without breaking your axle constantly.
19
Question 5 - Data Results
At this point in the interviews, a rhythm usually had been established with the interview
participant with how the visual prompt was shared, the comfort with muting and unmuting if
there was ambient or direct noise in their background, or other nuances around being
interviewed remotely. Additionally, by this point, I reassured most that the answers they were
providing were rich and robust. At times, I would ask for clarifications and to explain concepts
they were speaking toward. As a result, the comfort level achieved when going into question
five, around key indicators of a “healthy” ecosystem allowed each interview participant to really
spend time reacting to the initial list of key indicators to help establish a “retrofit” model.
The response categories after coding resulted in a clear top three themes. The first,
again around the concept of diversity around industry mix, function mix, available levels of roles
available and needed, and even level of ambition by workers. The second, the ability for
workers to re-skill or up-skill. And third, the notion of career mobility, specifically around the
workers’ ability to genuinely perceive upward career movement if they were to participate in any
new ecosystem. This concept also was spoken to as a primary driver for when workers leave
firms and ecosystems entirely. An example of this dynamic are workers that leave ecosystems
of entire regions to pursue better opportunities in an entirely different regional ecosystem
19
From a private sector interview participant who is a Managing Partner of an innovation firm with clients
across public and nonprofit sector for over 25 years.
63
illustrated by the migration of Afrian-Americans leaving Jim Crow South to pursue more career
mobility in Northern cities.
Table 7
Question 5: What are the key indicators of a “healthy” ecosystem?
To illuminate the role that diversity plays as an input that can be driven, to help establish
healthy ecosystems, the following direct quote is informative:
So, it was really interesting to see the previous chart and then to get to this list, because
it clicks into my mind about the diversity of the ecosystem that you're talking about. So I
do think a healthy ecosystem is a diverse ecosystem, so one that's not overly dependent
on a particular industry, sector or type. So, a Washington DC is incredibly vulnerable
because it's so dependent on the political world. Los Angeles is incredibly vulnerable.
Right now if you think about the dominance of the entertainment industry and the fact
that that's just on hold, nothing's in production, theaters are closed. That's going to be
really devastating in that marketplace. Another piece, I think is important is really
something around mechanisms for navigation for individual workers. So as you think
about diverse industries or skills or robust menu of education options, when it comes
down individuals need some type of way to make sense of all these pieces.
20
An insightful perspective about the ability to re-skill and up-skill can be seen through the
following direct quote:
20
This interview participant serves as a Vice President and venture capitalist identifying scalable
education platforms. 64
I feel like an organization that is growing in not just the number of people who it's hiring,
but also its scope. Because otherwise you're just hiring up to a certain level of
experience and then those people are stuck and it's very hard to give them more growth
opportunities, where if your business is expanding then there's, it's like ... there's a
picture in my head that I'm not sure I can represent, but it's like you're building up a
pyramid...to keep getting to go up. And that offers more opportunities for promotions and
new skill sets and all that for everybody along the chain. And so I think to be healthy, you
need that, not just a hiring rate.
21
A third direct quote that speaks to the notion of opportunity through horizons, was a very
interesting insight that many other interview participants also alluded to, hence the category of
Career Mobility was affirmed:
Are the systems in place to sustain this development that needs to occur for recurring
growth? And then, if we start to think about growth or impact, we've got a little variation
on the McKinsey three horizons. They talk about three horizons of growth, we talk about
four opportunity horizons. One is around are you being innovative in terms of how you're
achieving the optimization of performance? So if I was going to look at an ecosystem
and see if it was healthy, is are people continuously innovating how they improve the
performance of their existing organizations? The second one is are they continually
looking at how to grow their reach, the value that they deliver, the markets that they
serve, the kinds of services or products that they deliver into the communities that they
serve? The third one is around renewal, and that is do they actually have people in their
organization or across their industry who are looking at reinventing the industry? So if
you think about a vulnerability, if you lived in Toulouse right now, that's a geography,
Toulouse, France, that is incredibly vulnerable to what's happening right now because
it's basically a mill town, right? It's Airbus. Everybody who is in Toulouse works for
Airbus, and so they are incredibly hard hit by what's happening right now with travel and
orders for aircraft. Now, if they had people working on renewal initiatives that had to do
with how do they diversify their portfolio beyond taking people from place to place and
bringing places to people, using AR and VR, augmented reality and virtual reality, then
they could shift their portfolio in a way. They could start putting effort into that, but they
are not able to do that, so they're stuck with an old manufacturing based business that is
stalled for now. So, I guess the two different frameworks that I think are interesting, are
people taking a systematic approach, are they looking at these opportunity horizons?
And then the fourth horizon that we talk about is actually maximizing the value of things
you're no longer going to do. So as you get out of the business of doing them, are you
maximizing the value that you get? And a commercial example of that is Netflix still
having a DVD business. Almost everybody thinks about Netflix today as a streaming
business, they still have a very healthy, robust DVD business because they know that
there are parts of the country that, for various reasons, or consumers who for various
reasons don't have good internet access and would prefer to have a DVD. So they got
21
From a Managing Director of an Executive Education program considered a leader in the corporate
innovation space, within a large business school in California.
65
people who are just maximizing the value that they extract on that. So, if I was going to
look at an ecosystem and think about healthiness, that longer list that you had, I would
be looking at diversification of opportunity, diversification of skills, and then I would be
looking at can I look across the organizations in that region and see that they are
investing in this systems-based approach, and that they are managing portfolios of
opportunity in a way that's smart and intelligent? So that's, again, just frameworks that
we use for thinking about those questions..
22
Question 6 - Data Results
Question six was focused on having the interview participant react to the three indicators
of healthy ecosystems:
1. Productive - The capability of an ecosystem grow, innovate and continuously improve
2. Resilience - The capability of an ecosystem to prevent, withstand and recover from
disruptions
3. Enables Value Exchange - Each participant, and sector, of that ecosystem freely
exchanges value within the ecosystem
This was the three pronged approach and order of importance I established and aimed to test
with interview participants. The interesting discoveries here are three fold. First, the
23
reordering of the three factors to determine healthiness. Enables Value Exchange became the
most important as a result of the interview participants insights, then came Productive and
Resilience. Second, these factors truly represented outputs or a means of assessment more
determining if an ecosystem was healthy or not. And third, the addition of a category around the
happiness and health of the individuals within that ecosystem as a factor to help assess if that
ecosystem is truly healthy or not, was not anticipated but a very welcome surprise.
Table 8
Question 6: How do you evaluate the healthiness of an ecosystem?
22
From a private sector interview participant who is a Managing Partner of an innovation firm with clients
across public and nonprofit sector for over 25 years.
23
Informed by both my own professional experience, as well as Iansiti and Levien’s approach highlighted
in Chapter 2: Literature Review.
66
From the interview participants, interesting highlights began with exchanging value. This
was in the context of every participant having the ability to trade on any unique value they had
towards some end:
Like JFK's challenge to the country. Like, "You know what, we're going to put a man on
the moon by the end of this decade." Did we even have a rocket at that point? No. but
we realized collectively that there was a need for something. And what did that lead to?
That led to that innovation, and that ingenuity, and that sense of common purpose and
drive, individuals thinking about the ecosystem and not about themselves.
24
Regarding productivity as a category, which incorporates continuous improvement, a few
interesting insights emerged:
I think the thing that pops up and I think capture under productivity is some sense of
responsiveness or ability to continue to adapt. So how, as you start to see that things are
coming, that you can make the changes necessary to the ecosystem in order to continue
to meet these needs in a timely manner, which is I think something that we really
struggled to do today, and how can you do that in a way understanding the role that
each player has in the ecosystem.
25
An additional perspective that highlights this notion of improvement overtime:
Replicating models, right? So, piloting, prototyping, what's working, what's not. And
what's not working, you cut that off and then you move forward, and you go, "Okay, we
tried that, we documented it. We've learned from that, and we're not going to do that
again." Right? I mean, the issue that you run into, I would say, in an unhealthy
24
From a public sector interview participant currently serving as Special Advisor the Mayor of a large city
within California.
25
From an interview participant who is also the Chief Executive Officer of a national nonprofit focused on
workforce opportunities and career pathways for America’s youth. 67
ecosystem is this sense of amnesia that can happen, you know? ... transitions in
administrations, or leadership, or businesses, or cycles of growth, and you go, "Wait, we
just tried this. We tried this five years ago and it fell flat, and we have limited resources."
And the most limited of resources is time, and that's what we're becoming painfully
aware of right now, given the current situation, is that time is the resource that can't be
replenished. Capital pools, you can replenish those, you can restock that pond.
Workforce and labor pools, you could restock that pond. Time is the critical element that
is critically needed. I mean, it's the oxygen for the ecosystem, I would say.
26
Regarding the addition of health and happiness as a category, the follow quote is
representative:
Well, I think where I'm drawn to is I get an intrinsic metric. I'm thinking about Bhutan's
Gross Domestic Happiness, and I think that that is again really critical here as far as
understanding the relationship of a system to its individual components, and especially
when we're talking about commerce and economy. The point of these, in my estimation,
is to support healthy, fulfilling, joyful, experience of life for as many people as possible,
and productive doesn't quite get to it.
27
In terms of rich perspective around the notion of Resilience and how it can even be a
spectrum, the following insight is valuable:
And then the resiliency I think is half of the coin. And the one thing that I would add
would be the other half of that coin, which would be the ability to seize new
opportunities. So you're looking at the way it's word and you could put those together.
But the way it's worded here, it's very kind of defensive. I'm going to prevent, withstand
or recover from, like a disruption that puts disruption in the character of the attacker.
Disruption could be the opposite of that also, it could be an amazing opportunity and
wave to serve. So I would say actually where I might put it is a scale where at the one
end is I'm not even resilient. And then at the crossover point, I'm resilient as it's defined
on this slide. And then at the other end, I actually love, just I don't know if there's
26
This interview participant serves as a Vice President and venture capitalist identifying scalable
education platforms.
27
From a private sector interview participant with over 30 years of experience delivering innovative
solutions to private companies, governments and non-profit organizations.
68
anybody that's at the space, but if you were defining an asymptote. I love disruption
because every time there's a disruption, my ecosystem adapts and is better.
28
Question 7 - Data Results
Question 7 represents the transition to Part 2 of the interviews focused on Ecosystem
Examples. The question asks what are the best examples of healthy ecosystems within specific
geographies. And prompts of cities were given as these examples: Austin, Nashville, Denver
and an allowance for others not listed. The provided cities were selected based on a
combination of professional experiences and secondary information I attained over the years,
including direct experience with professional development clients, innovation work, and LinkedIn
Economic Graph data. However, it was also shared that although these cities were within
certain geographies, other regions or geographies could be selected. Additionally, it was
reinforced that although these cities are usually a part of a conversation on healthy and
attractive ecosystems, the potential exists for this to be culturally biased.
Table 9
Question 7 (a): What are the best examples of healthy ecosystems within specific geographies?
28
From a public sector interview participant currently serving as Special Advisor the Mayor of a large city
within California.
69
Regarding Austin,the largest number of interview participants agreed with this example.
The following direct quote is illustrative:
So I will say with Austin, there's a couple things that come to mind. So one, it's a growing
sector with a number of different jobs that are coming there. A lot of companies are
moving down there, two you really have, I would say kind of a strong sense of from the
public private partnership and how they're building those pieces out from kind of their city
plan into how they think about those two kind of a really a strong Chamber of Commerce
and so I'm forgetting the name of the folks that I've met with him a few times about how
they're actually trying to think about being the role of a chamber of commerce and how
they actually play that connective tissue between K12 and higher ed and workforce and
bringing these stakeholders to the table. So I think that that's another piece that's really
interesting.
29
The city of Chicago was mentioned twice as an unprompted addition to the list. The
following direct quote adds context to phenomena in Chicago:
I think it's really interesting that Pivotal Ventures picked Chicago to be its first designated
city. So, there's probably something they saw in their due diligence that have them really
excited about that region. You have major institutions there. You have a new mayor that
is trying to do a bunch of reform. I think the base question in my head is just around
public policy and leadership in the public levels, but there's some really good folks there,
including one of my GSB classmates. So, I think that there's something interesting going
on in Chicago that I can't fully define, and it will be great to watch, and there's a deep
history there, too, of a healthy ecosystem, kind of this return to greatness of the Midwest.
30
Other insightful comments that go deeper in the reasoning of factors that enable a city to
be a part of a healthy ecosystem conversation is quite insightful as well as demonstrated by the
following quote:
I think those are great examples. The commonality that I see there is that there's a
socioeconomic healthiness to their ecosystems. You hear Austin and you hear, like, "Oh,
it's diverse. Oh, it's got a strong arts community. It's progressive," that there's a melting
pot and that there is an entrepreneurial drive there that there are businesses relocating.
29
This interview participant serves as a Vice President and venture capitalist identifying scalable
education platforms.
30
This interview participant is the Founder of a management consulting firm focused on mid-market
clients throughout the United States.
70
And I would say that that resonates with both Nashville and Denver, as well. I think of the
cities that demonstrate sort of healthy ecosystems right now with regard to geographies
and skill gaps, and the other component pieces that we've discussed, is that they have
that sort of blend of progressive thinking, diversity in culture and demographics, and that
they are very forward thinking about how they're trying to incentivize intentional growth.
So, creating incubators, and startup spaces, and coworking spaces, and working on the
local, regional, and state level to come up with programs, and there's an integration of
their educational institutions, higher education institutions and public/private
partnerships, that there's sort of this rhythm that they've established where you have
good institutional partners that are making good decisions for themselves and for the
community. And then, you have a sense of community. The interconnectedness is very
tangible between the different pieces of those cities and of those geographic regions.
31
The (b) portion of this question asked of the cities that the participant discussed as being
healthy in the previous list, as well as any others, which aspects of those city’s story added to
the case of them being considered a healthy ecosystem. And more specifically, this part
focused on illuminating approaches taken to create a healthy ecosystem by mitigating: a low
supply of qualified workers, a lack of mobility among workers, and information asymmetry
between workers and employers. The approach suggested by the quote below indicates a
range of possibilities available to enable skills-gaps to narrow.
Table 10
Question 7 (b): Within healthy ecosystems, what aspects of that system’s story makes it
healthy?
31
From a private sector interview participant with over 30 years of experience delivering innovative
solutions to private companies, governments and non-profit organizations. 71
All interview participants agreed equally with categories around mitigating low supply,
lack of mobility and information asymmetry. Other cities took more active efforts to ensure and
highlight diversity of job types and communities. An interesting insight that illuminates
discussions here can be seen with the following direct quote on mitigating low supply of
qualified workers in San Francisco:
Another way to mitigate the low supply is to actually train people inside and your
community already. If you look at the Bay area, for example; I was working with Cal
State East Bay not that long ago. Here you have a situation where a lot of tech
companies can't find enough people to work in their industries, and yet there's high
unemployment rates here in the Bay area. So what if you actually matched industry with
universities, et cetera, and you've created more of a pipeline where industries and
universities working together can create a pipeline, for example, of people who need
jobs to meet the jobs that are needed so to speak. So there's better connection. There
are always going to be abusers, but I actually think that from an employer standpoint, the
remote work actually allows you to get people to be even more productive because
people are going to work anyway. And to me, I don't care if someone has to go off to the
grocery store or tend to a family member because in a sense, that actually builds trust
with employees who believe that you are an investment in them and you're aren't looking
over their shoulder. They're probably likely to work harder for you because if you're
providing them a really good, unique experience that they might not be able to get
elsewhere, why would they be upset? They'd be pretty motivated, I would think.
32
Question 8 - Data Results
Question eight (a), in contrast to seven (a), attempted to engage interview participants
with unhealthy ecosystem city examples. Although, this question, as well as eight (b), did not
have as rich a base of conversation to identify phenomena. However, it was clear through
32
From a public sector interview participant currently serving as Special Advisor the Mayor of a large city
within California.
72
conversation, that many felt San Francisco is actually a part of that healthy conversation. There
were no direct quotes here, however through tone and use of pause, I detected a sense of
frustration with San Francisco with three interview participants. This could be a result of those
interview participants having most information about San Francisco given they are residents of
the Bay Area and recent negative news or events.
Table 11
Question 8 (a): What are the best examples of unhealthy ecosystems within specific
geographies?
Similarly, the notion of equity and equality was highlighted in five interviews, as can be
seen in the themed categories below.
73
Table 12
Question 8 (b): Within unhealthy ecosystems, what aspects of that system’s story makes it
unhealthy?
An example of the notion of inclusiveness by gender, race and socioeconomic status
can be seen in the following direct quote:
So, that's obvious things like gender, and race, and socioeconomic status, and low
income versus high income, and disabilities. Then, also kind of number and amount, so
you aren't getting skewed to one industry or one major employer, et cetera.
33
Question eight, by far, was the most difficult for interview participants to answer, and as
a result, this question makes up the least amount of conversation to base transcript coding from.
Question 9 - Data Results
Question nine represented the final portion of the interview conversation, Part 3: Final
Thoughts. The question asked, as the participant reflects on what it takes to truly understand
what makes an ecosystem “healthy,” what would they emphasize to others attempting to best
understand the concept going forward. The goal of this question was to get the participant to
33
From a public sector interview participant currently serving as Special Advisor the Mayor of a large city
within California.
74
view through the lens of narrative or “story,” critical concepts, and share how they would think of
communicating to others around healthy ecosystems that narrow skills-gaps.
The most important category across all participants was that others should appreciate
what Value Exchange is and its role in a healthy ecosystem. The second most important
category concerned the Role of Diversity in understanding healthy ecosystems. Third, the
participants spoke to the Role of Identify in healthy ecosystems and how that is an element.
The fourth most popular category was Silo Removal, in other words, ensuring collaboration.
The fifth category did address the concern of understanding the Role of Automation and how
the nature of work and skills will need to adjust given the rise of more technology enabling
various tasks to be done in new ways, without as much human involvement. The sixth category
involved the idea of aligning incentives properly to encourage the right behavior. And finally,
interview participants ended on the importance of how information is actually communicated, the
“what” and “how” of that communication to be more specific.
Table 13
Question 9: Which aspects of understanding healthy ecosystems are most important for others
to understand the concept going forward?
75
Key quotes that help illuminate this portion follow. First, the notion of Value Exchange
across members of the healthy ecosystem, but also the value of that ecosystem itself in solving
the right problems:
It couldn't be more relevant and it couldn't be more important because again, back to this
concept of innovation and whether it's Elon Musk inventing a car that ... Electric car or
whatever the case may be. Smart people like yourself that are wrestling with these
issues and trying to come up with answers and solutions that benefits society, that is an
indicator of a healthy ecosystem because the minute that people like yourself stop doing
this type of work, we might as well all just go live in the cabins in the mountains and just
take care of our own, you know?
34
A key quote that helps illuminate the Role of Diversity is illuminating, especially given the
use of metaphor to help make the point:
When I think about ecosystems, I can't believe I didn't connect these dots earlier today
on our call, but when you talk about biological ecosystems, diversity's important. Right?
Part of the reason people are concerned about the oceans right now is certain
components that are needed to be functioning parts of the ecosystem are missing. I think
that that's the same for skills ecosystems. If you're seeing diversity thriving, it's probably
a signal that there's something healthy within that ecosystem.
35
The following quote that speaks to the values and the Role of Identity of the ecosystem
is poignant. The interview participant felt very strongly about what the ecosystem stands for
and how it takes into account relationships and those who are downtrodden:
I mean, I think identities can also be exclusive, but the positive aspects of that are like
really important. I think for example, where I've seen really positive ... in Hawaii for
example, there's a term Ohana, there's an all strong Ohana culture, there's a Hawaii
culture there where people are generally focusing on the spirit of aloha, helping others. I
think that can actually be really powerful even in impoverished communities, a sense of
identity as a place to start where people feel some measure of pride. I think that's really
important. So I put it high up there.
36
34
From a private sector interview participant with over 30 years of experience delivering innovative
solutions to private companies, governments and non-profit organizations.
35
From a public sector interview participant currently serving as Special Advisor the Mayor of a large city
within California.
36
From a private sector interview participant who is a Managing Partner of an innovation firm with clients
across public and nonprofit sector for over 15 years.
76
The collaboration aspect of what it takes for healthy ecosystems to function well was
addressed by a concept of Silo Removal illustrated by the following:
It's how do you actually have a guiding forces to help them understand how...they can
work collaboratively towards a broader good in a way than if they were just operating in a
silo may not make 100% system effectiveness, but when they see kind of that broader
piston system or picture within their community, it makes sense for each stakeholder to
play their part, for each stakeholder to make the investments they need in order to
ensure that everyone can win.
37
As the focus of the research is on the skills-gap portion of the Future of Work debate,
many participants highlight that nonetheless, we must acknowledge the disruptive dynamic and
Role of Automation. The following quote is illustrative of this perspective:
And by the way, we haven't even talked about automation, right? So automation, climate
change, in some ways this pandemic is a warm up for those things. So we have an
opportunity right now to actually do some things to get in front of those trends, because
that disruption is only going to occur going forward. But I think more and more now
you're going to find people, I mean, you're seeing it literally every hour right now. People
are learning how to use Zoom. People are offering courses on how to use Zoom. So a lot
of entrepreneurial people are already moving into the future. How do we scale that for
everybody else?
38
The following direct quote on Incentive Alignment is worth acknowledging, especially
given it also highlights subtext around the need for a goal orientation:
The biggest takeaway, I would say is like, how do you align incentives across
stakeholders towards some type of common goal? Right? How do you align where
employers understand that, oh, we need workers and this ties to our bottom line? So
we're willing to invest longer term in school districts who were realizing the same piece
or with public private partnerships to say, hey, we need to push for these other services
to ensure that all of our individuals in our community are getting these needs.
39
37
This interview participant serves as a Vice President and venture capitalist identifying scalable
education platforms.
38
From a public sector interview participant currently serving as Special Advisor the Mayor of a large city
within California.
39
This interview participant serves as a Vice President and venture capitalist identifying scalable
education platforms.
77
The above direct quotes illustrate just how wide ranging responses were when asked
what should be kept in mind when explaining healthy ecosystems to others. From these
responses, participants seem to indicate that Value Exchange, Role of Diversity and Role of
Identity are somewhat more foundational concepts to appreciate first grasping what it takes to
best approach the topic to others with no frame of reference or particular expertise in systems
analysis.
Question 10 - Data Results
The final and tenth question of the interview, asked participants, given their professional
experience, how might workers, firms and policymakers enable the development and
sustainment of healthy ecosystems. The goal with this question was to get more specific to the
most relevant audiences this research aims to have a contribution to practice for, in a practical
way. Workers, firms and policymakers, should take the output of this question and apply
specific application of each category as a goal to themselves, their firms, and in constructing
policies.
For purposes of the below table, all categories, perspectives and themes apply across
the board, regardless of audience: workers, firms and policymakers. The first most commonly
agreed upon category was the importance of the Lifelong Learning Mindset. The second most
commonly agreed upon theme is the need to incorporate and apply innovative approaches. The
third most common category concerns an ability to continuously improve. The fourth most
important category surrounds all having a mindset of interconnectedness. The fifth most
78
important category involves the need for multiple sectors to engage in facilitation towards an
objective. The sixth most important coded category speaks to the need for inclusivity in a
general sense. Others, fields, Data & Measurement and a Convening Body, showed up in the
results. However, the relative weighting given the total was somewhat minimal with respect to
the previous categories.
Table 14
Question 10: How might workers, firms and policymakers best enable the development and
sustainment of healthy ecosystems?
The notion of lifelong learning being deeply rooted in a mindset showed up in a number
of conversations with interview participants. However, the best and most rich example of this is
within the following detailed quote:
The first and foremost is to seek opportunities where you are able to continually learn. It
is this embracing of a growth mindset, and looking at every job as a... And I often give
this advice as a... A university that you're attending where are you were being paid to
attend it, so look for opportunities that stretch you, where you can grow, where you can
add skills, and where there is clearly opportunity for mobility up within the organization,
or where you feel like I'm adding skills that are going to make me more valuable in the
marketplace. There may be a ceiling of what I can do within this organization, but I can
acquire skills here that will make me more valuable to others, and therefore I have the
ability to migrate out, to move out. I think for workers, to use clichés, but it's lifelong
learning, it's increasing your mobility, increasing your market value by really approaching
79
it to the extent that you can from personal passion and interest, and where can you go
where you can direct those and grow those, and be valued for building them, right? We
have had clients in the past that have been quite hesitant to invest in the development of
their people for fear of losing them, which is a very strange self-fulfilling prophecy.
Needless to say, they weren't clients very long because they don't have any use for us.
But you do run into that, so I think for workers there would be that advice.
For firms, so maybe look at firms, one of the lenses that we put on our clients'
organizations, just thinking about who works in the operation of the now, the now
instance of your business, and who's working on inventing the next version of your
business? And again, I say business, but it could be a foundation, it could be a
legislative body, it could be a government organization, it could be the Department of
Defense. But think about those, and think about what the conditions for success are in
both of those. Be willing to operate under different rule sets, because that's what it's
going to take for both of those to thrive. The rule sets are quite different, and so you
want to be clear, you want to articulate what they are, and make sure people understand
that.
And for policymakers, I think policy that does encourage that public/private partnership,
the public/private investment in education, in lifelong skill building, is really critical. I think
creating incentives for people to learn is really critical, or for organizations to create
those learning opportunities. I think investing in the exploration and experimentation in
new models of delivering skills.
So again, just refer to our own model, we think about what we call the next cycle, how
something goes from, "Hey, we've got a set of objectives, things we want to accomplish,
we've got some strategies to accomplish those, we have identified some need or pain
that aligns with those that we can solve to advance and make progress on those
objectives." Now we've got a hypothesis about that pain, we're going to validate it, we're
going to generate a hypothesis about a solution, we're going to validate it, we're going to
put it into operation at a small scale, we're going to learn from it. It's going to move
through what we call the next cycle, it's going to move from formulating a hypothesis
through incubating it, through accelerating it, into operation and growing and scaling it to
a point of actually obsoleting it with whatever is going to be next, and it's this repeating
cycle. And you think about the thing having the journey, there are these incredibly
important moments at each stage, and at each of those moments there's a certain set of
skills that executives, managers, and practitioners need to have. And the ability to learn
the skill and apply the skill at the moment of need is going to become more and more
important. The speed with which things are developing, the speed with which technology
is happening, the amount of uncertainty that we're dealing with, a classic go to university
and learn a set of theories, and then wait for the moment in the real world where you can
apply them is going to be less and less useful. So this ability to recognize a moment, to
call up the content that I need, the knowledge I need at that moment and the ability to go
apply it is incredibly important. And so getting more discreet about the kind of knowledge
80
that's needed when, building the ability to deliver that and act on it. Then I think the level
of proven expertise, that I've done that repeatedly in a certain situation, therefore I am
seen as an expert or a valued contributor, I think that will be really important.
40
Regarding the category of Innovative Approaches, many interview participants spoke to
this as well. A compelling quote here is as follows:
You can spend, we can get all futurist and talk about all kinds of innovative approaches.
My instinct is, a couple of things that could be interesting. If you think about it
fundamentally what makes us human is our creative capacity and our passions and our
expressions. And during the industrial age we sort of were doing the work of machines
that were sometimes expressive but oftentimes rote and production oriented. If AI can
release us from some of those things, it allows for more creative expression. If AI can
actually do things like allow for more effective food distribution and allow us to focus our
energies on other things. So imagine for example, if AI could take care of a lot of our
routine tasks and freed us up to be more thoughtful about other existential challenges
like climate change, like global health, like exploring our universe, et cetera, imagine
what amazing things we could create as a human species.
41
The category which embodies the theme of Continuous Improvement, especially when
we fall back to rely upon our strengths as a crutch, both individuals and ecosystems. This
dynamic is colorfully addressed by the following direct quote:
The other thing that I would add at that point is something that somebody at Kellogg
presented one time about an airline and they went and they reviewed, it doesn't matter.
The better analogy was they talked about a bodybuilder and there was this bodybuilder
and the bodybuilder was watching himself in the mirror and he had humongous biceps.
So he was doing all of these curls because he really liked to see his bicep because it
was like monstrous. And then he was doing all the chest presses and watching his pecs,
he had these teeny tiny little skinny legs and he wasn't doing squats. And the professor
was saying this is really, really common in organizations and in kind of large ecosystems
as well as in human beings is that we tend to do the things that we're good at and if we
need to improve something, we fall back on our strengths when what we really need to
be doing is going after our weaknesses. So you sort of hit that with like saying leaning in,
with really just even being reminded that that's like a tendency that we have. And maybe
accountability partners or different accountability reports or things like that can be helpful
in remembering, no, I really I got to try new things. I've got to have new approaches
40
From a private sector interview participant with over 30 years of experience delivering innovative
solutions to private companies, governments and non-profit organizations.
41
From a public sector interview participant currently serving as Special Advisor the Mayor of a large city
within California.
81
because my old approaches were really good over here and they were bad over a here.
So they're not going to be the right way to fix the problems, the gaps that they cost.
42
Finally, there was a concept that does not fit neatly into any particular category around
Enoughness. A few different interview participants used it more as a value than a specific
approach. The essence of this idea can be seen in the quote below:
I think the challenge of our time though is the concentration of wealth. Some people like
Andrew Yang, when they talk about, distribution of the universal basic income, they're
looking at it from an altruistic standpoint. How do we actually really support and sustain
each other so we can all live in some kind of harmony. There are other people who look
at it who are like, "We are the smart people in Silicon Valley and we're the ones who are
going to be creating all this great stuff for the world and we've got to figure out how to
help everybody else just survive, right?" There's that kind of cynical view that we often
hear as well. I like Yang's model a little bit more. Maybe we could get to a world where
we practice more of what Schumacher called, enoughness, where we get to a point
where we're driven not by just absolute gain, but ultimately what does it mean to be
enough? What does it mean to have enough for ourselves, for our communities and
others. Because once you've got enough, you're fed, you're housed, you're sheltered, et
cetera, you don't need a whole lot else. So what do we do with that else? What do we do
with this extra capacity?
43
Summary
This chapter summarized key findings from the coded transcripts, as well as provided
selected quotes to establish richness, color, nuances and context. The coded output was also
sorted and displayed in a way as to visually see rank ordering of the most common categories
and relative weighting of the categories with respect to the whole. A few key observations and
conclusions across all the data exist that are worthy of visual representation in the tables below.
42
This interview participant is the Founder of a management consulting firm focused on mid-market
clients throughout the United States.
43
From a private sector interview participant with over 30 years of experience delivering innovative
solutions to private companies, governments and non-profit organizations.
82
Regarding the phenomena of what an ecosystem is, how to think about their scope, and
key features of ecosystems, please see the below visual (Table 15). From interview responses,
it became clear that an ecosystem: involves interdependencies, is multilayered and represents a
community, among other smaller characteristics. Regarding the “scope” or boundary of that
ecosystem, it is porous, meaning the what is in versus out of the ecosystem depends on
problems being solved, dependencies of participants within the ecosystem, and point in time.
The ecosystem itself may even expand or contract, in this sense it is breathing, as it includes or
excludes other sub-ecosystems or dependencies. The participants and subsystems are diverse
and may move across the boundary depending upon approaches to solving various types of
problems, market conditions, demographic changes, etc.
Table 15
Identified ecosystem phenomena
83
The first part of the “retrofit” model, can be seen in Table 16 below. These levers, as a
result of the interviews, are actually inputs into an ecosystem. They are not sufficient for a
healthy ecosystem. And they are not how one would assess “healthiness.” The rank ordering
of the inputs can be viewed most important to less important, in the following order: Diversity,
Ability to Re/Up Skill, Career Mobility, Hierarchy of Needs Met, Hope, Skill Navigation,
Sustained Hiring, and Cross-Sectoral Collaboration. The surprising category that was not
anticipated was Hope. Individuals, and even organizations and firms, need to feel as if they are
hopeful about the future. This requires a perspective of viewing across time, and seeing an
upward sloping trajectory about long-term future prospects, relative to near term prospects.
Table 16
Retrofit Model A = Key factors and inputs that help create a healthy ecosystem, ranked in
clockwise order.
84
The second part of the “retrofit” model concerns the assessment of “healthiness” of an
ecosystem. The proper way to think of this is as a checklist where within each field, a score or
grade can be attained. Scores above a certain level or threshold, across all indicators of
healthiness, that ecosystem might then be considered to be healthy. For example if creating a
scoring mechanism from a survey instrument to determine on a scale of 0 - 100, rating value
exchange, productivity, resilience and healthy participants, an average score of 85 might be
considered healthy. The rank ordering of these categories, from most to less important is in the
following order: Enables Value Exchange, Productive, Resilient, Healthy Participants (See Table
17 below).
Table 17
Retrofit Model B = Key evaluation criteria to assess “healthiness” of an ecosystem, ranked left to
right.
The surprising category here that was not anticipated was the presence of Healthy
Participants illuminated within interview question 6. This concept means individuals that are
85
both physically and mentally healthy and organizations that promote sound work-life
balance
and general wellness of employees and the community in which it resides. This acknowledges
the point that if an ecosystem experiences individual participants that are freely exchanging
value, is productive and even resilient, but does not possess participants, individuals or
organizations that are healthy, then the ecosystem itself cannot be considered truly healthy.
This dynamic was alluded to indirectly by a number of interview participants, however, it was a
nuance that I noticed emerge through revisiting the data after a number of iterations and
references back and forth to notes and transcripts.
The following Chapter 5: Contribution to Professional Practice summarizes the answers
to the key research questions, both central and subsequent. The chapter also walks though
how this research contributes to the practice generally. Specifically, the final chapter also will
explain how each target audience, workers, firms and policymakers, can apply insights from this
research in a practical way going forward.
86
CHAPTER 5: CONTRIBUTION TO PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
Introduction
Within Chapter 5: Contribution to Professional Practice, I will summarize the answers to
the central and subsequent research question and identify the significance of this research to
workers, firms and policymakers. It is my hope that this research establishes additional
perspective to the unfolding nature of emerging trends around ecosystems and what it truly
takes to narrow skills-gaps, participate in the benefit of a narrowing skills-gap, understand the
levers and assessment mechanisms to make intelligent decisions around: up-skilling and
re-skilling, career mobility, and ensuring information flow is as seamless as possible. All of
these tactics can help practitioners better understand characteristics of healthy ecosystems and
their roles within them.
Answers to Research Questions
Answering the Central Question
The Central Question of this research was, “what is the definition of a healthy
ecosystem?” In attempting to answer this question, a baseline understanding of what an
ecosystem actually is was established. Through this research, my definition of a healthy
ecosystem that emerged is:
87
An ecosystem is a community made up of diverse participants, that involves
interdependencies and is multilayered, enjoys a porous border and expands or contracts
based upon a balance of activities between its sub-ecosystems and participants. The
healthy ecosystem enables the exchange of value freely among its participants, is
productive, is resilient and supports the health and happiness of those that make up the
ecosystem.
44
Answering the Subsequent Questions
There were three subsequent questions that will be addressed in order.
1. What are the main inputs of a healthy ecosystem?
The main inputs of a healthy ecosystem are now known through this research to be Retrofit
Model A (See table 16, in the Summary of Chapter 4). These primary inputs emerged as the
research was conducted. The following rank ordering of the inputs of a healthy ecosystem, the
inputs, have been identified: diversity, ability to re-up skill, career mobility, hierarchy of needs
met, hope, skill navigation, sustained hiring and cross-sectoral collaboration.
2. What are any byproducts of a healthy ecosystem?
Byproducts of a healthy ecosystem include secondary effects and impacts. From this
research, it became clear that byproducts include: health, happiness, equity and equality. If a
healthy ecosystem does its job well, then workers, firms and even policymakers would
experience these byproducts in a manner that they each appreciate most given their goals,
mandates, tasks, missions and visions.
44
This definition is framed in two parts. The first part leverages phenomena from the first three questions
of the research instrument around defining ecosystem, as it relates to narrowing skills-gaps and scope.
The second part leverages conclusions across the remaining portion of the research instrument.
88
3. How might we assess if an ecosystem is healthy or not?
Part B of a “retrofit” model was established. This model identified the four main criteria
for assessing the healthiness of an ecosystem. In order, these criteria are: Value Exchange,
Productive, Resilient, and Healthy Participants (see Table 17, in the Summary of Chapter 4).
The identification of the order of the four assessment fields, understood as outputs as the
research progressed, as well as the introduction of the fourth criteria itself, represents the
answer to the Central Question of what is a healthy ecosystem.
Significance to Workers
Workers within the context of this research have emerged to be inclusive of all
individuals aspiring to earn wages in exchange for the value they deliver through their skill-sets.
These include diverse workers by: demographic, age, sex, years of experience, educational
level, geography, marital status and more. The focus of this research was primarily workers in
the United States. The application of this research to workers is threefold:
● A deep appreciation of how to identify a healthy ecosystem
● An significant understanding of how to identify and convey value to the labor
marketplace based upon existing skills
● A learning mindset embraced in order continuously adapt, remain agile and
deliver skills-based value to the market place in a way that allows a happy and
healthy career and access to opportunity
All workers will be forced to continue to adapt and be agile with updating skill-sets. The
days of going to get an education when we are young, then we graduate, and then we work for
89
50 years, are over. It will be essential for workers to embrace a mindset of constantly identifying
their gaps, capture those skills rapidly and effectively, then apply those skills to constantly hone
and practice will be ever more important as time goes on. We will see more workers need to
work with technology and working alongside automated processes through a technology
interface will be a key ingredient to career mobility. Additionally, the use of creative skills,
interpersonal skills, behaviors that enable persuasion, and an ability to connect with an
increasingly diverse society will be increasingly necessary to thrive in the future.
Significance to Firms
The definition of a firm is typically a for-profit entity that may be formed in multiple ways:
limited liability corporation, S-Corp, etc. However, the significance of this research is also
applicable in many cases to public organizations and nonprofits as well. The key areas of
application of this research to for profit organizations includes:
● How to analyze existing and future healthy markets as ecosystems
● Understanding how to enable existing employees to optimize existing skills, new
skills, physical health, mental health and overall happiness
● How to implement innovative approaches and adopt a spirit of continuous
improvement to existing and future workforces, communities, and collaborative
strategic partners
All firms, as time goes on, will need to increasingly have a focus on their relationship with
and responsibility to their workforce and community health. The paradigm of simple short-term
shareholder value at all costs, without regard to “how” that firm operates with respect
90
to how it treats employees, will change. The posture firms of the future will need to adopt will be
one of taking ownership around ensuring employee wellness, ongoing skill-development,
ensuring a culture of coaching, and even potentially intelligent use of the platform’s power as a
voice on the most impactful social issues.
Significance to Policymakers
The policymaker audience as an area of focus within this research applies to any local,
state, or federal public officials, mission-issue oriented think tanks and community focused
organizations and social enterprises. The key areas of application of this research to
policymakers includes:
● An understanding of relationships of inputs to outputs that enable healthy
ecosystems
● An understanding of the public-private partnership potential in enabling
collaboration to activate inputs to healthy ecosystems
● An appreciation of the resources required to properly hone the muscle for
effective assessment of ecosystem healthiness
● The role of public sector’s role in playing various parts in narrowing skills-gaps
through: mitigating low supply of workers, enabling mobility of workers, and
addressing challenges around information asymmetry
Policymakers and influencers of the future will need to be even more well-versed around
the implications of rapid technological advances on social dynamics. Ensuring that those who
are left behind today, are not further left behind tomorrow is a dogged perspective policymakers
91
must operationalize towards. Ensuring a baseline quality education to ensure the labor force of
the future is prepared for the new roles that will emerge will also be critical. Immigration policy
and opportunity within ecosystems within states and regions of the United States must
collaborate in new ways in order to be increasingly competitive relative to international
opportunities. Trends around student loan debt and contingent work need to be incorporated in
policies at all levels: local, state and federal. The skills-gap directly impacts the wealth-gap and
effective policy should aggressively aim to mitigate widening gaps from baby boomers
throughout generations X, Y (Millennials) and Z.
Research Areas Identified for Further Study
In terms of targeted areas identified for further study from this research, there are six
main areas that emerged. First, the extent to which culture, political and social environmental
factors impact ecosystems and the exchange of value between participants could be further
explored. Second, there is the possibility that other inputs to healthy ecosystems exist beyond
those that emerged within this study. Third, best practices can be identified to enable a lifelong
learning mindset across demographic types of workers. Fourth, best practices can be identified
to enable interconnectedness among participants within and across ecosystems. Fifth, focused
research on new and as yet to be discovered skills that will emerge as a result of automation
and artificial intelligence in existing industries and functions should be continuously explored.
Sixth, best practices identified on micro-learning and signaling to enable career mobility, given
the evolving nature of technology platform usage and work from home dynamics, should be
identified, researched and tested.
92
Conclusion
It is my hope that this research has contributed to the field in further answering
characteristics around healthy ecosystems, phenomena, and important approaches identified to
practitioners. Across workers, firms and policymakers, the hope is further to provide
sensemaking in how to apply conclusions through the two part retrofit model and conclusions
given experienced interview subjects across private, public and nonprofit sectors. For future
researchers on this topic, my hope is that you are inspired to carry forward any part of this
research that may have highlighted an area of interest or curiosity that may enable more
economic equality in the future.
93
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of
Management.
Aaker, D. (2018). Creating Signature Stories: Strategic Messaging That Persuades, Energizes
and Inspires. Morgan James Publishing.
Allen, Robert. (2017). Lessons From History For The Future of Work. Nature. Volume 550.
Issue 7676.
Anthes, Emily. (2017). The Shape of Work To Come: Three Ways That the Digital Revolution is
Reshaping Workforces Around the World. Nature. Volume 550, Issue 7676.
Arntz, M., Gregory, T., Zierhan, U. (2017). Revisiting The Risk of Automation. Volume 159. P.
157 - 160.
Autor, David. (2015). Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace
Automation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. Volume 29, Issue 3. P. 3 - 30.
Barnett, W., Sorensen, O. (2002). The Red Queen in Organizational Creation and Development.
Industrial and Corporate Change. Volume 11, Issue 2. P. 289 - 325.
Baron, David. (2009). A Positive Theory of Moral Management, Social Pressure, and Corporate
Social Performance. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Volume 18, Issue 1. P.
7 - 43.
Bertalanffy, L. and Miller, J.G. (1978). Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Beston, P. (2017). When High Schools Shaped America’s Destiny: An early-twentieth century
grassroots movement for mass secondary education positioned the nation for world leadership.
The Shape of Work to Come. City Journal: Education, Economy, Finance & budgets.
Bielenberg, Burn, Dickenson, Galle. (2016). Think Wrong: How to Conquer the Status Quo and
Do Work That Matters. Instigator Press.
Birks, M. and Mills, J. (2011). Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications. 1st
Edition.
94
Brown, Alan. (2012). Automation vs Jobs. Mechanical Engineering. Volume 134, Issue 4. P. 22 -
27.
Brown, P., Lauder, H. (2013). Auctioning the Future of Work. World Policy Journal. Volume 30,
Issue 2. P. 16 - 25.
Brynyjolfsson, E and McAffee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and
Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. Norton.
Brynyjolfsson, E and McAffee, A. (2017). Harnessing Our Digital Future: Machine, Platform,
Crowd. Norton.
Chakrabarti, R and Zhang, J. (2015). Unaffordable Housing and Local Employment Growth:
Evidence from California Municipalities. Urban Studies. 52. P. 1134 – 1151.
Charmaz, Kathy. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory: Introducing Qualitative Methods.
SAGE Publications. 2nd Edition.
Cresswell, J.W, Cresswell, J.D (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. 5th Edition.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2017). The Work Ahead: Machines, Skills and U.S. Leadership in
the Twenty-First Century. Independent Task Force Report No. 76.
Davenport, Thomas. (2018). When Jobs Become Commodities. MIT Sloan Management
Review. Volume 59, Issue 2. P. 16 - 17.
The Economist. (2018) All Must Have Degrees: Higher Education. P. 51.
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A525895080/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=57c899d9 .
Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Future Threat of a Jobless Future.
Basic Books.
Gratton, Lynda. (2010). The Future of Work. London Business School Review.
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (2016). The Future of Work in the 21st Century . Journal of Economic
Issues. Volume 50, Issue 1. P. 197 - 216.
Hartigh, E., Tol, M. and Visscher, W. (2006). The Health Measurement of a Business
Ecosystem. The ECCON 2006 Annual Meeting, Organisations as Chaordic Panarchies.
Hines, A. and Bishop, P. (2015). Thinking About the Future: Guidelines for Strategic Foresight.
Hinesight. 2nd Edition.
95
Iansiti, M and Levien, R. (2004) The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business
Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation and Sustainability. Harvard Business School Press.
Iansiti, M. And R. Levien (2002). Keystones and Dominators - Framing the Operational
Dynamics of Business Ecosystems. Working Paper.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. (2012). Enriching the Ecosystem. Harvard Business Review. March,
Vol 90 (3). Pp. 140 - 147.
Lemoine, P.; Richardson, M.; (2015) Micro-Credentials, Nano-Degrees and Digital Badges: New
Credentials for Global Higher Education. International Journal of Technology.
Moore, James F. (1993): A New Ecology of Competition . Harvard Business Review. May-June,
1993. Pp. 75 - 86.
Moore, James F. (1996) The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of
Business Ecosystems. Wiley & Sons. Chichester.
McKinsey & Company (2017). Technology, Jobs, and The Future of Work . McKinsey Global
Institute.
O’Reilly, C., Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, Future.
Academy of Management Perspectives. Volume 27, Issue 4. P. 324 - 338.
Orton, J. and Weick, K. (1990). Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization. Academy of
Management Review.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. (2010). Power: Why Some People Have It And Others Don’t. Harper Business.
Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time. Harper
Business.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. (2018). Dying for a Paycheck: How Modern Management Harms Employee
Health and Company Performance - And What We Can Do About It. Harper Business.
Progressive Policy (2019). America’s Skills Gap: Why It’s Real, And Why It Matters
( https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SkillsGapFinal.pdf )
Report of Findings. (2017). Shift: The Commission on Work, Workers and Technology. New
America and Bloomberg. https://docsend.com/view/4wizcjb
96
Ross, Alec. (2016). The Industries of the Future. Simon & Schuster.
Saxenian, A. (1996). Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route
128. Harvard University Press.
Schwartz, P. (1996). The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World.
Crown Business.
Schwartz, P. (2003). Inevitable Surprises: Thinking Ahead in a Time of Turbulence. Gotham
Books.
Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization.
Doubleday.
Sydow, J. and A. Windeler (1998), Organizing and Evaluating Interfirm Networks: A
Structureationist Perspective on Network Processes and Effectiveness. Organizational
Science. Vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 47 - 75.
Sorenson, J., Sorenson, O. (2007). Corporate Demography and Income Inequality. American
Sociological Review. Volume 72. P. 766 - 783.
Susskind, D. and Susskind, R. (2015). The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will
Transform The Work of Human Experts. Oxford University Press.
Van Der Hejden, Kees (2005). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. John Wiley &
Sons. 2nd Edition.
Van Looy, B; Debackere, K.; Andries, P. (2003). Policies to Stimulate Regional Innovation
Capabilities via University-Industry Collaboration: An Analysis and An Assessment. R&D
Management. 33. P. 209-229.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General Systems Theory. New York: George Braziller.
Wade, W. (2012). Scenario Planning: A Field Guide to the Future. John Wiley & Sons.
Wheatley, Margaret. (2006). Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic
World. Berrett-Koehler. 3rd Edition.
Williams, Colin. (2009). Re-Reading The Future of Work. Theory In Action. Volume 2, Issue 3.
World Economic Forum. (2016). The Future of Jobs Report: Employment, Skills and Workforce
Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
97
Zabel, J. (2012). Migration, Housing Market, and Labor Market Responses to Employment
Shocks. Journal of Urban Economics. 72. P. 267-284.
Zahra, S. and Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and Strategic Thinking in Business
Ecosystems. Business Horizons. 55. P. 219-229.
98
APPENDIX
Research Instrument Displayed to Subjects
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
IRB Approved Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Kevin J. Williams
Sol Price School of Public Policy
Lewis Hall 312
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMED CONSENT FOR RESEARCH
Study Title: The Future of Work - Defining A Healthy Ecosystem That Closes
Skills-Gaps
Principal Investigator: Kevin J. Williams
Department: University of Southern California, Sol Price School of Public Policy
INTRODUCTION
We invite you to take part in a research study. Please take as much time as you need to
read the consent form. You may want to discuss it with your family or friends. If you find
any of the language difficult to understand, please ask questions. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign this form. A copy of the signed form will be
provided to you for your records.
KEY INFORMATION
The following is a short summary of this study to help you decide whether or not you
should participate. More detailed information is listed later on in this form.
1. Being in this research study is voluntary – it is your choice.
2. You are being asked to take part in this study because of your professional
experience related to better understanding healthy skills-gap ecosystems. The
purpose of this study is to investigate factors of healthy ecosystems, the
characteristics and factors, with intention to create a potential model to
108
"retrofit" organizations and larger communities to thrive. Your participation in
this study will last approximately 60-90 minutes through a recorded interview
either in person or via remote audio platform. Procedures will include a 60-90
minute conversation with the researcher, then the researcher will anonymize
names and identifying information from the recorded conversation. A
transcript will be provided by the researcher to the participant for a period of
six months from the interview date.
3. There are risks from participating in this study. The most common risks are
bias of results, breach of confidentiality, or conflict of interest. More detailed
information about the risks of this study can be found under the “What are the
risks and possible discomforts?” section.
4. You may not receive any direct benefit from taking part in this study. However,
your participation in this study may enable the identification of characteristics
of healthy ecosystems.
5. If you decide not to participate in this research, your other choice may include
not participating.
DETAILED INFORMATION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to identify phenomena around healthy ecosystems to help
ensure U.S. workers can effectively and sustainably earn living wages in the future. To
better understand the phenomena around what enables and sustains healthy
ecosystems as it relates to skills-gaps. This fuller understanding of healthy ecosystems
will enable the creation of a "retrofit" model to support the structure and function of
organizations and the people in such organizations, their families, and greater
communities. You are invited as a possible participant because of your extensive
professional experience and insight into one or many dynamics that define and create
healthy ecosystems that serve to narrow skills-gaps. About 12 participants will take part
in the study.
PROCEDURES
If you decide to take part, this is what will happen:
● Standard procedure:
a. Initial contact made by the investigator to determine interest and
willingness of participating in the study
109
b. If participant is interested and willing, a meeting or call time will be
scheduled for the 60-90 minute interview.
c. A calendar “hold” via Google calendar will be emailed to the participant by
the investigator to an email of choice within one day of scheduling.
d. Informed Consent form
i. By 24 hours prior to the meeting or call time, investigator will email
the Informed Consent form in advance.
ii. For in person meetings, a hard copy of the Informed Consent form
will be brought by the investigator as a backup.
iii. A signed copy or scanned version of the Informed Consent form
must be received by the investigator by the participant prior to the
beginning of the 60-90 minute interview.
e. For audio only calls, a secure link or conference call dial-in number will be
provided to the participant by the investigator 24 hours prior to the
scheduled interview.
f. The investigator will anonymize the name, role and title of the participant
for storage of the data.
g. Within 30-60 days post interview, the participant will receive a full
transcript of the interview to help establish validation and reliability.
RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Possible risks and discomforts you could experience during this study include:
Bias of Results: There is a small risk that the results, answers to questions, and
information provided by the participant may be impacted by:
● Current news cycle
● Current economic climate
● Participant organizational dynamics
● The surrounding environment and timing of interview
● The type and order of questions asked
● Possible technological challenges around weak cell phone or wifi signal
for audio interviews
Breach of Confidentiality: There is a small risk that people who are not connected
with this study will learn your identity or your personal information.
Conflict of Interests: There is a small risk that the relationship between the
investigator and participant represents a conflict of interest and may impact the
information provided.
110
BENEFITS
There are no direct benefits to you from taking part in this study. However, your participation in
this study may help us learn key phenomena around definitions, examples and characteristics of
healthy ecosystems that narrow skills-gaps.
PRIVACY/CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. Efforts will be
made to limit the use and disclosure of your personal information, including research study and
medical records, to people who are required to review this information. We may publish the
information from this study in journals or present it at meetings. If we do, we will not use your
name.
The University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) may review your
records. Organizations that may also inspect and copy your information include: book publishers
and/or academic journals.
Your data or specimens will be stored in password protected files on local laptops. Only
the principal investigator will have access to passwords.
Your information or samples that are collected as part of this research will be used or
distributed for future research studies without your additional informed consent. Any
information that identifies you (such as your name) will be removed from your private
information or samples before being shared with others.
ALTERNATIVES
An alternative would be to not participate in this study.
PAYMENTS
You will not be compensated for your participation in this research.
COST
There are no costs related to participation.
NEW INFORMATION
We will tell you about any new information that may affect your health, welfare, or willingness to
stay in the research.
111
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
It is your choice whether or not to participate. If you choose to participate, you may
change your mind and leave the study at any time. Refusal to participate or stopping
your participation will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise
entitled. If withdrawal must be gradual for safety reasons, the study investigator will tell
you.
If you stop being in the research, already collected data may not be removed from the
study database. You will be asked whether the investigator can continue to collect data
from your records. If you agree, this data will be handled the same as the research data.
No new information or samples will be collected about you or from you by the study
team without your permission.
The study site may still, after your withdrawal, need to report any safety event that you
may have experienced due to your participation to all entities involved in the study. Your
personal information, including any identifiable information, that has already been
collected up to the time of your withdrawal will be kept and used to guarantee the
integrity of the study, to determine the safety effects, and to satisfy any legal or
regulatory requirements.
If you wish to withdraw from the study at any point, email the investigator your intentions
at kevinjustinwilliams@gmail.com or call him directly at (917) 345-0594.
PARTICIPANT TERMINATION
You may be removed from this study without your consent for any of the following
reasons: you do not follow the study doctor’s or investigator’s instructions, at the
discretion of the study doctor or investigator or the sponsor, your condition gets worse,
or the sponsor closes the study. If this happens, the study doctor or investigator will
discuss other options with you.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, complaints, or think the research has hurt you, talk
to the investigator at (917) 345-0594 or by email at kjwillia@usc.edu.
This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The
IRB is a research review board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect
the rights and welfare of research participants. Contact the IRB if you have questions
about your rights as a research participant or you have complaints about the
research. You may contact the IRB at (323) 442-0114 or by email at irb@usc.edu .
112
STATEMENT OF CONSENT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been
given a chance to ask questions. All my questions have been answered. By signing this
form, I am agreeing to take part in this study.
Name of Research Participant Signature Date Signed
(and Time*)
Person Obtaining Consent
I have personally explained the research to the participant using non-technical
language. I have answered all the participant’s questions. I believe that the participant
understands the information described in this informed consent and freely consents to
participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Signature Date Signed
Informed Consent (and Time*)
Witness
A Witness is Required When: (1) the participant cannot see, read, write, or physically
sign the consent form, or (2) the Short Form method is used to obtain consent. In these
situations, the witness must sign and date the consent form.
If no witness is needed, leave this signature line blank.
Name of Witness Signature Date Signed
* If a study procedure is done on the same day the informed consent is signed, the time
and date are required.
113
Coded Data & Results
114
115
116
117
118
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The context of leadership in the development of California’s innovation hubs
PDF
A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning
PDF
The functions of the middleman: how intermediary nonprofit organizations support the sector and society
PDF
The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study
PDF
Integrating the industry sector in STEM learning ecosystems: a multicase study
PDF
County governance reform in California: introduction of the council‐executive model and the elected county‐executive
PDF
Adoption and implementation of innovative diagnostic tools for Alzheimer's Disease: challenges and barriers in primary care
PDF
Resilient and equitable urbanism by design: insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area
PDF
Life without nuclear power: a nuclear plant retirement formulation model and guide based on economics: San Onofre nuclear generating station case: economic impacts and reliability considerations ...
PDF
Mitigating the energy efficiency gap through Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE): an assessment of the HERO Program in Riverside County, CA
PDF
A framework for good local governance: achieving prosperity in an increasingly complex environment
PDF
The institutionalization of nonprofit management: emergence, development, and legitimization
PDF
Gangs beyond borders: California and the fight against transnational crime - have recommendations become reality?
PDF
Education based incarceration: educate to change the organizational culture of corrections in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
PDF
Preparation for a global economy: 21st century career-readiness and academic-citizenship skills for African American workforce entrants
PDF
How can metrics matter: performance management reforms in the City of Los Angeles
PDF
Influence of globalization, school leadership, and students’ participation in science competitions on 21st-century skill development, instructional practices, and female students’ interest in sci...
PDF
Homegrown violent extremism: designing a community-based model to reduce the risk of recruitment and radicalization
PDF
Emissions markets, power markets and market power: a study of the interactions between contemporary emissions markets and deregulated electricity markets
PDF
Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty
Asset Metadata
Creator
Williams, Kevin Justin
(author)
Core Title
The future of work: defining a healthy ecosystem that closes skills-gaps
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publication Date
09/18/2020
Defense Date
06/10/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
automation,Business,Development,ecosystems,Future,gaps,healthy,innovation,jobs,Learning and Instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy,reskilling,skills,upskilling,Work,Workers,workforce
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Abbas, Ali (
committee chair
), Natoli, Deborah (
committee member
), Robertson, Peter (
committee member
), Turrill, Robert (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kevinjustinwilliams@gmail.com,kjwillia@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-373607
Unique identifier
UC11666532
Identifier
etd-WilliamsKe-8981.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-373607 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WilliamsKe-8981.pdf
Dmrecord
373607
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Williams, Kevin Justin
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
automation
ecosystems
healthy
innovation
policy
reskilling
skills
upskilling
workforce