Skip to main content

Community Governance and Co-Ownership

Sharing decision rights and asset ownership with ecosystem members to deepen commitment and long-term stickiness.

This strategy isn't explicitly mentioned in Simon Wardley's On 61 different forms of gameplay, but it is a common ecosystem governance move in practice.

🤔 Explanation​

What is community governance and co-ownership?​

Community governance and co-ownership formalise shared control over critical ecosystem assets so members feel invested in the outcome. It uses structures such as:

  • Foundations or trusts that hold shared assets (standards, trademarks, infrastructure).
  • Member councils or steering committees that allocate budgets, set priorities, and resolve disputes.
  • Shared IP pools or licensing frameworks that let contributors use the commons while protecting collective value.

The aim is to shift the ecosystem from “participation by permission” to “participation by right,” making members more willing to invest and integrate their roadmaps with yours.

Why use this strategy?​

Ecosystem participants are more likely to build on top of shared assets when they believe those assets will remain open, stable, and fair. By giving members a stake in governance, you increase trust, encourage deeper contributions, and reduce fears of unilateral capture by any single firm. This can unlock faster adoption, more resilient standards, and a stronger stream of complementary innovation.

How does co-ownership reinforce ecosystem stickiness?​

Stickiness comes from the cost of leaving and the benefit of staying. Co-ownership increases both:

  • Governance lock-in: members must walk away from decision rights they helped design.
  • Asset lock-in: shared IP pools, shared roadmaps, and shared infrastructure make switching expensive.
  • Relational lock-in: councils, working groups, and shared rituals build reputational capital that is hard to replicate elsewhere.

When these are balanced with fairness and clear rules, the ecosystem becomes the default coordination arena for its participants.

🗺️ Real-World Examples​

Linux Foundation​

A neutral foundation that governs critical open-source infrastructure, funded by member companies. It creates shared stewardship while allowing companies to build proprietary offerings on top.

Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF)​

An industry-backed foundation that oversees cloud-native standards and projects, using a technical oversight committee and graduated governance tiers to keep contributors invested.

Hypothetical open data exchange​

Several financial institutions create a foundation to manage shared data schemas and APIs. A member council votes on upgrades and maintains a shared IP pool so no single bank can capture the ecosystem.

🚦 When to Use / When to Avoid​

🚦 Community Governance and Co-Ownership Strategy Self-Assessment Tool

Find out the strategic fit and organisational readiness by marking each statement as Yes/Maybe/No based on your context. Strategy Assessment Guide.

Landscape and Climate

How well does the strategy fit your context?

  • Your map shows a shared dependency that multiple parties must invest in to scale (standards, infrastructure, or common data).
  • Key ecosystem participants are reluctant to commit because they fear unilateral control or capture.
  • The value chain relies on interoperability where no single firm can credibly own the whole stack.
  • Critical components have evolved into utilities that benefit from neutral stewardship.
  • Multiple suppliers or partners require predictable governance to align roadmaps.

Organisational Readiness (Doctrine)

How capable is your organisation to execute the strategy?

  • We can design clear governance rules and enforce them consistently.
  • We have the legal and IP strategy capability to structure shared ownership safely.
  • We can invest in neutral stewardship roles that are not tied to product P&L.
  • We can manage conflict between members without eroding trust.
  • We are willing to share decision rights in exchange for ecosystem growth.

Assessment and Recommendation

Strategic Fit: Weak. Ability to Execute: Weak.

RECOMMENDATION
Consider alternative strategies or address significant gaps before proceeding.

LowHighStrategic FitHighLowAbility to Execute

Use when​

  • shared infrastructure requires long-term investment beyond any single firm
  • partners want assurances of neutrality before committing resources
  • the ecosystem needs a stable, trusted home for standards or shared IP
  • reputation and trust are critical to maintaining participation

Avoid when​

  • your advantage depends on tightly controlled proprietary assets
  • the ecosystem is too small or immature to justify formal governance
  • regulatory, tax, or legal complexity will deter participation
  • decisions must be made at high speed with minimal consultation

🎯 Leadership​

Core challenge​

Balancing open participation with decisive stewardship so the ecosystem stays trusted and fast-moving.

Key leadership skills required​

Ethical considerations​

Co-ownership should widen participation, not entrench gatekeepers. Leaders must ensure smaller members can influence outcomes and that governance does not hide anti-competitive control.

📋 How to Execute​

  1. Map shared assets that must remain neutral (standards, data, infrastructure, trademarks).
  2. Choose a governance vehicle (foundation, cooperative, trust) that fits legal and tax constraints.
  3. Define voting rights, escalation paths, and contribution requirements in a simple charter.
  4. Establish a member council with clear accountability for roadmap and budget decisions.
  5. Build a shared IP policy that balances openness with protection against opportunistic capture.
  6. Fund a neutral operations team to manage programs, compliance, and transparency.
  7. Review governance annually to keep the ecosystem adaptive and fair.

📈 Measuring Success​

  • growth in member participation and contribution volume
  • share of roadmap decisions agreed through governance channels
  • reduction in partner churn or fragmentation
  • adoption of shared standards or IP assets across the ecosystem
  • time-to-decision for council votes compared with baseline

⚠️ Common Pitfalls and Warning Signs​

Governance theatre​

A foundation or council exists on paper, but real control stays with the founding firm, eroding trust and participation.

Shared IP stagnation​

Overly restrictive licensing or slow decision cycles stop shared IP from evolving, pushing contributors to fork or leave.

Council gridlock​

Member councils expand without clear decision rights, leading to slow, political stalemates and missed market windows.

Misaligned funding​

Members expect shared services but underfund the foundation, leaving stewardship under-resourced and brittle.

🧠 Strategic Insights​

Neutrality is a competitive asset​

A credible neutral home can be more defensible than a proprietary platform when the market expects interoperability. It attracts investment from competitors who would otherwise withhold contributions.

Co-ownership reshapes switching costs​

Switching away from a co-owned asset means abandoning decision rights, reputation, and shared investments. That is a more durable form of stickiness than contractual lock-in.

Governance is part of the product​

Governance quality becomes a differentiator. Clear decision rights, transparent votes, and reliable execution signal maturity and make the ecosystem a safer place to build.

❓ Key Questions to Ask​

  • Shared assets: Which components must be neutral to keep the ecosystem growing?
  • Governance rights: How much decision power are we willing to share?
  • Participation: What commitments should be required for voting or steering rights?
  • IP policy: How do we protect the commons while preventing free-riding?
  • Speed vs. inclusion: Where do we need fast decisions, and where do we need broad consensus?

🔀 Related Strategies​

⛅ Relevant Climatic Patterns​

📚 Further Reading & References​

Author

Dave Hulbert
Dave Hulbert
Builder and maintainer of Wardley Leadership Strategies