Towards
Network-based
Ecosystems
Imagining a human-centric
infrastructure for customer
relationship management anddigital marketing

AUTHORS
Christopher Wilson
Kai Kuikkaniemi
Sille Sepp
Viivi Lähteenoja

WITH SUPPORT FROMIntroduction
The past decade has witnessed a remarkable surge in the influence andcapabilities of online platforms, matched by rapid advances in the useof online consumer data to track and target individuals for digitalmarketing. These parallel trends are poised to usher in a fundamental
change in how commercial ecosystems are managed online, byconsolidating customer relationship management into centralised
platforms controlled and managed by large and incumbent technology
companies.
This paper considers how the practice of customer relationshipmanagement has developed over the last decade and notes widespreaddissatisfaction with surveillance advertising and online business models
based on data exploitation. It suggests that a network-based ecosystem
is a better alternative to centralised platform logic for relationshipmanagement. It suggests that the rapid pace of technological andregulatory development in the fields of data sharing, digital marketing,and identity management provide a rare opportunity to fundamentallyshift the premises of customer relationship management.
To do so, this paper suggests five design principles for developing
the infrastructure that would enable human-centric and networkbased ecosystems for customer relationship management and digitalmarketing. It calls for a broad dialogue on refining these principles andadvancing a shared understanding of how to shape better digital
ecosystems for the data economy of tomorrow.

1

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

The problem withrelationships in the data
economyToday’s data economy is based on a logic of data exploitation andmonetisation. Shareholder primacy and profit incentives in large
technology companies have reinforced incentives for data hoarding andtrade, while divorcing the notion of data’s value and the interests and1

benefits of individuals . Consumers of online goods and services areoften blind to the value of the data created by their digital interactions.
Indeed, this model rewards businesses that establish efficient andinvisible mechanisms to generate, use, analyse, share, and sell
consumer data to third parties.
This fundamental power imbalance in data interactions prevents
individuals from exercising control and agency over their data, andthe innumerable benefits that doing so could bring to their lives
2

online and offline. This dynamic has further been associated with avariety of societal harms, including online monopolies, dark patterns
leading to social media addiction and the distortion of democratic
3

processes. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the current
model, and increasing calls to rethink the foundational structures anddynamics in today’s data economy.

4

The evolution of customer and vendor
relationship management
Indeed, viewed in the long term, the current market incentives for
digital ecosystems and ways of managing relationships between
consumers, vendors and technology providers are set up for failure. A
deeper look into the evolution and state-of-the-art of Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) can provide useful context for theseconcerns.
1

For a wider discussion of shareholder primacy, see https://www.aspeninstitute.org/ofinterest/the-impact-of-shareholder-primacy-what-it-means-to-put-the-stock-price-first-2/.
Sirkkunen & Haara 2017, Salesforce 2019.

2

MyData – an introduction to human-centric use of personal data (3rd, revised edition).
https://mydata.org/publication/mydata-introduction-to-human-centric-use-of-personal-data/

3

See Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information
Civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5

4This includes calls for specific regulatory interventions in the technology sector, such as
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/big-tech-ai-social-media-platforms-needdigital-advertising-tax-antitrust-publisher-liability-by-daron-acemoglu-and-simon-johnson-202303, and calls to rethink how the technology sector is incorporated into larger structures ofcapitalism, such as https://omidyar.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GuideDesign_V12_JTB05_interactive-1.pdf.

2

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a comprehensive
approach for businesses to effectively manage interactions andrelationships with current and potential customers. At its core, CRM isaimed at understanding customers deeply, tracking interactions, andtailoring experiences to build stronger connections and drive businessgrowth. The functionalities and design logic of CRM tools and platforms
define business practices for customer identification and the collection
and processing of personal data, and reinforce the dynamics describedabove.
The logic of customer management as a unilateral relationshipmanagement tool for vendors predates the data economy. In its earliest
manifestations, CRM practices were primarily defined by the use ofcustomer data registries, where identification happened through theuse of customers’ plastic loyalty cards.
The diffusion of mobile phone applications and digital marketing
technologies has revolutionised this practice, dramatically increasing
the capacities of vendors to track, understand, and exploit consumers’
data for economic value, and there has been a proliferation of vendorsthat do. The increasing uptake of CRM tools is accompanied bydissatisfaction with the quality and accessibility of other types of data,
including decreased cookie acceptance as a result of the disclosuresand consent practices mandated by the EU’s General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR). There is an increasing perception that the customer
data collected and monetised is not meeting companies’ demands, andoffers only the illusion of customer insight. Increasing awareness anddissatisfaction with the low quality of “surveillance data” has led thedigital analytics and marketing domains to seek new data sources that
could provide more meaningful insights into consumers’ online
behaviour. In particular, there is interest in generating and leveraging“zero party data” that individuals provide directly and explicitly to
5companies, including information on their preferences and interests.

This has resulted in an increasing alignment between CRM
approaches and digital marketing tools and approaches leveraged byindividual online vendors and retailers. However, this dynamic has notchanged the fundamental imbalance of information and control inmanaging customer and vendor relationships. The proliferation of tools
and strategies serves businesses, not individuals, and this has led toseveral calls over the last decade to develop vendor relationshipmanagement (VRM) tools that would counter this imbalance byempowering

individual

6

customers.

However,

VRM

tools

and

technologies have not gained significant traction in the market, andtheir potential to fundamentally alter the power imbalance between
online vendors and customers remains uncertain.
5

The term zero party data is intended to differentiate explicitly and directly provided data from “1stparty data” that is collected by online parties without data subjects’ knowledge, and “3rd party data”
that is data collected by media companies. This classification of data is inherently problematic as it
ignores and displaces the interests and agency of the individuals whose data is at issue.

6

See for example The Berkman Klein Center’s ProjectVRM, at
https://cyber.harvard.edu/research/projectvrm.

3

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

Another fundamental change to the dominant CRM logic is posedby the launch of centralised loyalty platforms for managing customer
data and relationships. These models diverge from the current stateof digital CRM tools insofar that the data collection and analysis
mechanisms currently employed by various vendors would becentralised within a wallet platform provided and controlled by acommercial entity with an established market share. Proponents
argue that this model provides customers and vendors with improved
usability and experience, while expanding the scope and potential of
data| insights, by removing the costs of standalone CRM tools forsmall companies. Centralisation is unlikely, however, to increaseindividuals’ capacity to access and control the data that shapes their
online relationships with vendors. Further, it diminishes individuals’
and vendors’ freedom of choice and hinders fair competition in themarketplace. Indeed, centralised wallet platforms like those proposedby the likes of Apple will succeed or fail based on the data exploitation
logic and platform protectionism of the current data economy. Thisrisks

perpetuating

that

logic

and

further

disempoweringofindividuals, exacerbating lack of online trust.

Case: Apple wallets
Of the many changes emerging in the online data economy,
the adoption of integrated loyalty and identity management
logic by incumbent technology companies is particularly
relevant, and the developments around Apple’s wallet are
indicative. 7
The Apple Wallet functions today as a relatively simple
storage mechanism for documents like travel tickets. Apple has
8announced incorporating loyalty identifiers and morecomprehensive functionalities for relationship management into
its wallet offering. This includes personal identification
credentials (through both digital and physical touchpoints),
points scoring, promotions, and enrollments. It is reasonable toexpect that these functionalities will be tightly integrated withthe communication functionalities of Apple’s messaging
platform, in the service of a seamless user experience based on
the control of NFC-based authentication for users of Apple Pay.
Other large Internet companies, including Google, arepursuing similar approaches. As these technology platforms
pursue market dominance, the outcome is not one ecosystem,
but multiple competing ecosystems. By locking users into siloedservices and establishing “walled gardens”, these solutions limit
individuals’ choices, stifle business innovation, and fragment thecore enablers of our digital society.

47

See https://mydata.org/2023/04/27/wallet-wars-its-the-war-of-ecosystems/

8

See https://developer.apple.com/wallet/loyalty-passes/

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

This places the development of CRM tools and practices at afundamental crossroads, as shown in Figure 1 below. The field ofpractice may evolve to centralise CRM practice within platform-based
digital ecosystems, situating information and power in the hands of afew platform providers. Alternatively, we may see a continued
proliferation of independent tools, which have thus far primarily beendeveloped

to

serve

vendorsandbusiness-to-businessserviceproviders. But none of these scenarios are certain, and neither are
they the only options.

FIGURE 1.

The evolution of customer relationship management

The moment is now
The field of commercial relationship management is at a pivotal
moment. Several different types of solutions are being explored toaddress the challenges described above, including calls for stricter
regulation, development of specific privacy-enhancing technologies
andsolutionsfollowing

human-centric9

principles.

These

are

important, but they often address only specific aspects of a larger
systemic problem. In order to meaningfully alter the underlying
market logics described above, we need a fundamentally different
design

on

which

to

build

the

technologicalandoperational

infrastructure of digital ecosystems.
Widespread dissatisfaction with current relationship management
models presents opportunities for such a shift. Companies areinvesting heavily in building trustworthy brands in response to
growing wariness about how customers’ data is used online.
Simultaneously,

emerging

regulations,

such

as

the

EU’s

Data

Governance Act, the Brazilian draft for Data Empowerment Act, andthe Japanese Data Free Flow with Trust initiative emphasise a truly
global imperative to regulate data sharing and build trust in these10

models.

These and other regulatory initiatives are setting global

expectations, and are matched with significant investments in data9

See https://www.oecd.org/publications/emerging-privacy-enhancing-technologies-bf121be4-

10

See https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/data-governance-act,

en.htm and https://mydata.org/participate/awards/ , respectively.
https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/fichadetramitacao?idProposicao=2401133, andhttps://www.digital.go.jp/en/dfft-en#:~: , respectively.

5

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

sharing infrastructure, particularly in the EU, where €134.5 million
have been allocated to developing data spaces and data sharing
infrastructure through 2027.

11

Digital enablers and technologies arealso advancing apace, with increased adoption of innovative solutions
for digital identity and permissions, such as digital identity and12personal data wallets, and the maturing field of data intermediaries.
Commercial trends such as the increased integration of digitalmarketing and CRM tools and the increasing use of identity
verification and credentials in commercial digital wallets and payment
13

solutions, suggest a market in flux.
Taken together, this suggests several dynamics that can beleveraged to rethink how individuals can play an active role in shaping
and defining their relationships with vendors in the online data
economy.

11

See https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_5863.

12

For a discussion of the complementarity of such developments, see European Commission, Joint
Research Centre, Farrell, E., Minghini, M., Kotsev, A. et al., European data spaces – Scientific insights
into data sharing and utilisation at scale, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/400188

13

6

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbirch/2023/02/01/the-wallet-wars-are-not-aboutmoney-they-are-about-identity/.

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

The power of networks
The field of customer relationship management is poised for a
fundamental shift towards platform-based infrastructures that will
centralise

thecollection,

management

and

use

of

individuals’commercial data. In many ways, this is a logical development of thedata exploitation model that underpins today’s data economy, but it isneither a positive nor a necessary development.
Instead of consolidating governing power with incumbent market
leaders, digital ecosystems could be designed according to a network
logic, in order to enable collaborative and symbiotic relationships
between businesses, customers, partners and suppliers. This would
encourage data sharing and collaborative business models between
ecosystem participants on the premises of data sovereignty and trust.
This has several advantages over a centralised platform model for
digital ecosystems. Most obviously, a network-based model provides amore open and scalable approach to data exchange than what can beprovided by single platforms, no matter their size and scale. Networks
can also balance competing interests in order to maintain the stability
that we expect of other types of infrastructure, providing a more evenplaying field for commercial companies to offer goods and services.
These market advantages can help to explain why fields such as
telecommunications and banking, which were originally dominated by afragmented field of small monopolies, have evolved into interoperable
networks that facilitate the transfer of information across multiple
actors in order to provide single point-of-use services to individuals.
Centralised platforms

Open networks

Maincharacteristic

A centralised ecosystem approachfor connecting customers andvendors through a digital systemowned by a single company.In
essence, platforms become de facto
standards aimed at becoming
dominant players or evenmonopolies in the market.

A decentralised ecosystem that isgoverned and managed by its
participants. Customers (including
individuals) and vendors can connect
to the network directly or with thesupport of connecting-enabling
service providers (intermediaries)

Benefits

Usability for customers
Scalability

Ability to choose service provider
No vendor lock-in
Collaborative regulation
Stability and resilience, if mature

Risks andweaknesses

Vendor lock-in
Power imbalance
Limitation of innovation

Complexity in early phase
Funding challenge
Establishing a stable collaborative
business model

ExamplesEcosystem solutions provided by
Google, Apple, Meta

Banks, telecom operators

TABLE 1. Main differences of the platform and network-based ecosystem solutions

7

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

Had the banking and telecommunications sectors not developed as
open networks, this would directly impact our daily lives with amyriad of inconveniences. We could only call or message family andfriends who used the same mobile phone provider. We would need toeither limit our purchases to vendors that used the same bank as we
did or maintain dozens of bank accounts to enable payments todifferent vendors using different banks. This setup is impractical andriddled with obstacles to value creation. It was not realised in the caseof banking, thanks to advancements in technology, standardisation,business incentives and regulatory enforcement.

The field of CRM

and digital marketing should do the same. Thinking about our
everyday interactions with banking and phone networks also
highlights how a network logic empowers individuals in practice, and,in doing so, can create innumerable benefits for businesses, public
14

services and individuals alike. The future of relationship management
will be designed deliberately or by unchecked market incentives. It
will be designed according to the logic of platform consolidation andexploitation or according to the logic of open networks andempowerment. A choice can be made to pursue the latter, recognising
its value for individuals, companies, and society at large.

Design principles for a network-based
infrastructure
Commercial ecosystems are made of technologies, tools, rules andlaws, business actors and practices. The business architecture
ultimately defines whether the ecosystem will function according to aplatform or network logic.
The platform-based relationship management ecosystem is largelyin place already. Technological platforms and user interfaces are
already established by large technology incumbents, and the businessmodel of data exploitation has been largely socialised. Every day,individuals sign away rights to their data in exchange for theconvenience of free online services. The stage is set for that future.
We advocate for a better future based on open networks andindividual empowerment. This requires developing not only thetechnical components for data management and exchange, but also thebusiness, legal, and social components that will enable commerce andinteraction. Business models and incentives must be clear and sharedacross diverse stakeholder groups. Rules and governance mechanisms
must be elaborated and agreed upon. Trust must be fostered. The firststep in developing this infrastructure is a shared vision andcommitment between different parties. As a first step in this direction,
14

Some have argued that enabling individuals to control how their data is shared is the inevitabledevelopment of network-based data sharing models, insofar as the inherent complexity of data
sharing between large numbers of organisations can be radically reduced when individuals hold andmanage all their data through personal data stores. See https://medium.com/mydex/the-perilsof-pre-copernican-data-strategy-974827845585.

8

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

weproposethefollowing

designprinciples

for

relationshipmanagement infrastructure based on open networks.

#1

Commongovernanceframeworks

tosupportbusiness-level

collaboration.

Clear rules and alignment of business models are necessary to foster
trust in the network and its participants, and to incentivise
15

collaboration. Data space rulebooks and blueprints can provide usefulreference points for designing such governance structures, in orderto establish the foundations for business-level collaboration andinteroperability. This, in turn, provides the foundation for addressing
long-term challenges related to semantic, technical, and operational
interoperability.

#2 Decentralisation through intermediaries.
Governance models should accommodate and acknowledge the roleof multiple data intermediaries in providing the technical andoperational

infrastructureforestablishing

network-based

ecosystems. Interoperability across multiple data intermediaries isimportant in order to guarantee decentralisation. It should beprioritised over using distributed technologies such as distributed
ledgers, which can be consolidated and controlled by single actors,
16

distorting the underlying network logic of open ecosystems.

#3 The four-corner model.
The four-corner model is a set of relationships designed to leverage
networks to solve scalability challenges in service provision. In doing
so, this model also addresses the inherent asymmetry between
businesses

andindividuals

participating

in

any

given

digitalecosystem, by linking each individual consumer in the network with aservice provider of their choice. This resembles the network logic of
the banking and telecom sectors, in that service providers areinterconnected and interoperable in order to provide comprehensive
network coverage and seamless connectivity. Service providers may
provide their services to individuals or companies, but function
according

to

the

same

governancestructure

and

rules

of

interoperability.

15

See https://dssc.eu/page/knowledge-base16

For a discussion of how this model compares to the “two corner model” and “three corner model”
see https://smart-connected-supplier-network.gitbook.io/processmanual/architecture/four-9corner-model.

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

#4 Common business models for customer-directed service providers.
A key challenge in providing a stable and competitive environment for
all participants in a four-corner model network is the business model
for customer-directed service providers. Online consumers havebecome accustomed to receiving free digital services and are unlikely
to pay for connection-enabling services immediately and at scale.
Early exploration into potential business models has highlighted thepotential of revenue-sharing and roaming mechanisms to enable
revenue flow from vendor-directed service providers to customerdirected service providers. Public sector subsidies to customerdirected service providers might also be justified to enable open
network ecosystems as a public good. Further elaboration andinnovation is required to identify and test sustainable businessmodels.

#5

Relationship management should be enabled through a core set offunctional elements.

Identity management, permission management, and communication
can be understood as the core functionalities that enable networkbased relationship management. While other functionalities may also
play an important role, developing network-based infrastructure
should begin by understanding how existing technologies andresources could be leveraged to enable these functionalities together.
The ways in which each of these components function together within
the network needs to be precisely defined in ecosystems’ rulebooks,
architectures

andgovernancestructures,

and

can

build

on

preliminary work by the MyData Operators thematic group. This canbe done through a combined use of existing technologies, such as
decentralised identifiers, wallets, smart contracts, and messaging
technologies, and there are several assets and tools available to guide
how this is done.

10

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

Moving forward
The parallel trends of market consolidation and technologicalinnovation are poised to usher in an era of platform-based monopolies
and fragmentation of customer relationships online. This would
accelerate the worst tendencies of the data economy towards data
exploitation and disempowerment, inhibiting the creation of value
through trustworthy exchange of data and missing an opportunity tobuild ecosystems built on trust and individual empowerment. Network
logic can enable a more fair, sustainable and prosperous future, but
requires clear thinking and a realignment of priorities and incentives
across businesses, regulators, and consumers. This in turn requires abroader conversation, driven by a commitment to imagining a betterdata economy, and the infrastructure on which it would be built.
This paper has provided preliminary analysis and design principles
to advance that thinking. It has suggested that a network-based
ecosystem for relationship management is in the long-term interests ofvendors, technology providers, consumers, and society as a whole. It
elaborated five design principles to be applied in the development ofnecessary infrastructure:
1. Commongovernanceframeworks

tosupportbusiness-level

collaboration.
2. Decentralisation through intermediaries.
3. The four-corner model.
4. Common business models for customer-directed service providers.
5. Relationship management should be enabled through a core set offunctional elements.
These design principles provide a starting point to convene a wider
conversation between those already building data ecosystems for
tomorrow’s internet. That conversation needs to leverage our collective
motivation to balance the benefits to business, individuals, markets andsociety. We need to be bold and aggressive in working together to map
the way to a better future. MyData Global is dedicated to facilitatingthat conversation, and suggests these design principles as a starting
point for constructive feedback and iteration. We hope to bring
together pioneers and innovators to begin exploring how we can put
these ideas into practice. This is a starting point. We’re all in this
together.

11

Towards Network-based Ecosystems

About MyData Global
MyData Global is an award-winning international nonprofit. The
purpose of MyData Global is to empower individuals by improving
their right to self-determination regarding their personal data.
MyData Global facilitates a global community of personal data
professionals and enthusiasts, who share a vision of human-centricparadigm towards personal data. This paradigm is aimed at a fair,sustainable, and prosperous digital society, where the sharing of
personal data is based on trust as well as balanced and fairrelationships between individuals and organisations.
Join MyData Global at mydata.org/participate/membership/
Email us at hello@mydata.org
Follow us on X @mydataorg
Visit us at mydata.org

About this publication
Authors: Christopher Wilson, Kai Kuikkaniemi, Sille Sepp, Viivi
Lähteenoja
Design: Sille Sepp
Citation information: Wilson, C., Kuikkaniemi, K., Sepp, S. and
Lähteenoja, V. (2023) Towards Network-based Ecosystems. MyData
Global.
This report may be shared or adapted with attribution under
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
©2023, MyData Global association. All rights reserved.
MyData Global and the MyData Wheel logo are registeredtrademarks or trademarks of MyData Global Association. All
specifications are subject to change without notice.
Download this publication at https://mydata.org/publications

9

Towards Network-based Ecosystems