# Task: Design collaboration and governance Use a bounded business process to clarify contributions, rights, responsibilities and review. ## Prepare Prepare a specific collaboration problem, participants and existing contracts, operating records, available budget and decision authority. ## Produce Produce a pilot scope, role and authority table, contribution records, draft rules, evaluation criteria and stop conditions. ## Check Separate factual records, contribution evaluation and rights decisions. Check payment capacity, appeals and approval authority before starting or expanding. ## Conditions Test collaboration on a small scale, retaining participant confirmation and human decisions. Knowledge resources and AI outputs do not create rights, approve budgets or make commitments for others. Confirm inputs, conditions, sources and versions. List missing information; do not invent it. Identify goals, budgets, rights, permissions and final decisions that require human confirmation. ## Original text and version - Thinking: Everyone Helps Create Value. Who Should Decide Its Allocation? | V1.0 | https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/value-creation-distribution-authority/ Markdown: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/resources/value-creation-distribution-authority.md Distinguish shared value creation from authority to decide distribution. - Methods: The Business Logic and Implementation of Stakeholder Value Co-creation and Sharing | V1.0 | https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/stakeholder-co-creation-method/ Markdown: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/resources/stakeholder-co-creation-method.md Identify participants, value collaboration and conditions for co-creation and sharing. - Models: Four-Ecology Governance Model: Contributions, Rights and Collaboration Loops | V1.1 | https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/ Markdown: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/resources/four-ecology-governance-model.md Connect contributions, rights, governance matters and review in one framework. - Playbooks: Start Small: A Pilot Plan for Stakeholder Collaboration | V1.0 | https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/stakeholder-collaboration-pilot/ Markdown: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/resources/stakeholder-collaboration-pilot.md Choose a bounded process and set pilot scope, conditions and stop criteria. - Tools: Contribution records and review: evidence-based evaluation and objections | V1.0 | https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/contribution-record-review/ Markdown: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/resources/contribution-record-review.md Record contribution facts, evaluation evidence and the handling of objections. - Training: Whose Contribution Matters? A Multi-Role Assessment Workshop | V1.0 | https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/ Markdown: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/resources/contribution-evaluation-workshop.md Use a multi-role tabletop exercise to examine evaluation criteria and disagreements. ## Associated Skill The associated Skill supports further research, source checking and content preparation. Authorized people must deliberate on governance rules and rights decisions. Think Tank Research and Publishing: https://yutengfei.com/en/skills/think-tank-research-publishing/ ## Record results, deviations and knowledge or steps that need revision. Version: V1.0 · 2026-11-05 https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/pathways/collaboration-governance/ --- Select resources and sections as needed instead of indiscriminately loading every document. Exports retain existing licenses and third-party notices. Downloading grants no additional adaptation, commercial-use or training rights. --- # Everyone Helps Create Value. Who Should Decide Its Allocation? - Author: Andrew David W.Y. - Source: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/value-creation-distribution-authority/ - Version: V1.0 - Published: 2026-10-19 - Revised: 2026-10-19 - Content status: Full text published - Content type: Thinking (ideas) - Research topics: Stakeholder Capital Governance (stakeholder-governance) - Ecosystem perspectives: Resource Ecosystem (resource) · Customer Ecosystem (customer) · Operations & Management Ecosystem (operations) · Capital Ecosystem (capital) ## Use this resource **Purpose**: Identify what is being distributed and the evidence for each contribution. Then separate who sets the rules, who decides individual cases, and who reviews them. A hypothetical case places participation, authority, and accountability in a traceable process. **Conditions for use**: Check that the subject, objective and constraints fit the task. Confirm any conditions that the article does not specify. **Thinking · Premises and reasoning** **Evidence and validation limits**: The example illustrates how to analyze the situation and use the approach. When applying it, substitute actual business records for the example conditions and check the judgment and outcome. No separate external-validation result is recorded for this article. Publication does not establish effectiveness; check the evidence, assumptions and limits in the text. This is a readable, citable knowledge resource, not an installed Skill. When using it with AI, retain its sources and limits and review the output. ## Full article An enterprise's results usually depend on many people's work. Some provide money, some develop products, some find customers and some deliver the work. Others keep handling the less visible tasks that still have to be done. They all help create value. When it is time to distribute the rewards, a question follows: who decides? Can someone who contributes more decide to take more? Can the person running the business make arrangements on everyone's behalf? If everyone has a view, how does the team reach a decision it can carry out? I think it helps to separate three questions: **who created value, how contributions are assessed, and who has authority to decide this particular allocation.** These questions are connected. Contribution should be an important basis for allocation. A contribution record alone, however, does not establish who may approve an arrangement, how far that authority extends or who is accountable for the decision. My view is that **an allocation should be decided by a person or body with clear authority over the matter and accountability for the decision. The people concerned should be able to provide evidence, understand the rules that affect them, express their views and use a clear review process.** These are my reflections and proposals on organizational governance. In a particular enterprise, we still need to examine what is being allocated, existing agreements, the organization's authorization procedures and applicable rules. Saying that everyone created value together does not settle those arrangements. ## 1\. Start by identifying what is being allocated Many disputes begin before the subject has been agreed. One person means remuneration already promised, another means an additional award, another means future equity, and another means participation in decisions. They may all use the word “rights” while discussing different things. Separate the subjects first. | Subject | What needs checking first | How it enters the discussion | | --- | --- | --- | | Existing commitments, such as wages, supplier payments and service fees | The obligations already established, their conditions and performance to date | Handle them under the relevant agreements and applicable requirements. Do not arbitrarily recalculate them using a new scoring scheme. | | New bonuses, awards or operating incentives | Where the resources come from, the available scope and who confirms the rules | Propose, assess, approve and implement arrangements within a defined scope and authority. | | Long-term interests, such as equity | Who provides them, how they are granted, when they take effect and what responsibilities apply | Use the appropriate formal arrangements and procedures. A contribution assessment does not itself grant rights. | | Participation in governance | Which matters people may understand, discuss, propose, review or decide | Define participation channels separately from final decision authority. | This is a basic step, but it is easily skipped. Revenue also has costs, existing obligations, necessary investment and continuing operations behind it. Before discussing an additional incentive, identify its source and scope. If the available amount has not been established, arguing over a percentage may produce a number with no practical basis. Deductions and amounts retained also need a basis agreed in advance or appropriately confirmed. Once results are known, “development needs” should not become a last-minute reason to change the amount available for allocation. Customers, employees, suppliers and channel partners can all contribute to the business. Distinguish rewards already received, outstanding commitments and possible additional sharing. Know which contribution an assessment is addressing. This helps avoid double counting without overlooking work that does not appear directly in sales figures. **Once the subject is clear, we can identify the relevant evidence and the level at which a decision belongs.** ## 2\. Make contributions visible, then assess them carefully I would start with four questions: who did the work, what did they do, what resulted from it, and how long did the contribution continue? Then consider the responsibility they carried, the risks they faced and the role of their input in the business at that time. Bringing in an order is a contribution. Delivering it on time, resolving quality problems and helping a customer continue working with the business also create value. Some inputs produce visible results immediately. Others need time before their effects can be assessed. A single measure for everyone can miss important work. Sales alone may undervalue delivery and service. Hours alone may not capture difficulty or actual results. I prefer to define the roles and tasks first, then choose appropriate evidence. Check facts where they can be checked. Explain the reasons where judgment is needed. Retain uncertainty where something cannot yet be confirmed. A score can support discussion, but it still contains choices: what was recorded, what was left out, why a weight was chosen and how continuing contributions are considered. Those choices should be open to questions. Putting a calculation into a system does not remove the need to check the source records and rules. Automation can reduce repetitive work. It cannot settle whether the rules are reasonable or the authority is clear. A clearer contribution assessment gives allocation a stronger basis. Who may make which decision still requires a separate check of authority. ![Figure 1: Contribution evidence and authorization jointly inform an authorized allocation decision](https://yutengfei.com/journal/value-creation-distribution-authority/materials/en/asset-01.svg) _Figure 1 separates contribution evidence from the basis of authority. The two must align for the specific allocation. An assessment does not automatically become equity or decision-making rights._ [Download Figure 1 as SVG](https://yutengfei.com/journal/value-creation-distribution-authority/materials/en/asset-01.svg) ## 3\. Connect decision authority to a specific matter and responsibility “Who decides?” needs more than a name. What may that person decide? Where does the authority come from? Where does it end? An operating manager may be authorized to approve an ordinary award. Long-term interests, changes to existing agreements or resources beyond the established scope may require different authority and procedures. Preparing a proposal does not necessarily give someone authority to approve it. Providing contribution data, assessing contributions, confirming a budget, approving an arrangement and making a payment are distinct tasks. A small team may assign several tasks to fewer people, but the responsibilities still need to be distinguished. I suggest making at least four things explicit: - **Scope:** what kind of allocation is being decided, for whom and for which period. - **Basis of authority:** the effective agreement or organizational procedure providing authority, and whether it covers this matter. - **Limits:** how far the decision may go, and who handles matters beyond those limits. - **Accountability:** who explains the basis, checks it, approves the arrangement, implements it and keeps records. If a decision-maker will benefit from the outcome, there should also be a way to handle the conflict of interest. Depending on the matter and organization, that may involve an independent check, a different approver or recusal under an established procedure. I am not proposing one fixed structure for every enterprise. The point is that authority should have a traceable basis and clear limits, with someone responsible for explaining each decision. ## 4\. Separate rule-setting, individual decisions and review A working mechanism needs to handle at least three levels of work. **First, establish the rules.** Which matters enter the allocation, what evidence is used, who confirms it and what requires reconsideration? Explain these before individual cases wherever possible, including how the rules may be changed. **Second, handle individual matters under those rules.** Check whether the information is sufficient, the records are accurate, the conditions are met and the calculation is correct. A person with the appropriate authority then makes the decision. Established rules should be applied consistently. **Third, handle errors and objections.** A missing record calls for a factual check. A calculation error calls for examination of the formula and its basis. A decision alleged to exceed its authority calls for an authorization check. Different problems need suitable routes for resolution. These levels may be assigned separately or connected through a simpler arrangement in a small organization. The person concerned should still know who will handle the issue, on what basis and how a response will be provided. In particular, distinguish **correcting the current case** from **changing rules for future cases**. An incorrect record can be corrected under the applicable procedure. If discussion shows that a rule needs improvement, identify who approves the change, when it applies and how people will be informed. Editing one number in a table does not automatically rearrange existing rights or previous outcomes. If the current rule itself is disputed, that issue should still go to a person or body with the relevant authority. It should not automatically be deferred to the next period. ## 5\. Give participants an appropriate way to take part Clear decision authority should be accompanied by appropriate participation. People can supplement records of their contributions. Relevant roles can be consulted on an assessment proposal. There should be a route to explain calculations and outcomes affecting the person concerned. Matters with broader effects may also warrant representative participation, consultation or periodic review. Participation should fit the matter. Giving an opinion, understanding the evidence, requesting review and making the final decision serve different functions. Transparency also needs boundaries. People should be able to see the rules and evidence relevant to them, while respecting others' personal information, business confidentiality and reasonable information limits. People should not be denied their own calculation details in the name of transparency. Nor should transparency mean publishing everyone's records without distinction. These arrangements may not eliminate disagreement. They give disagreements a process with evidence and a response. ## 6\. Walk through a hypothetical example The following scenario was written specifically to explain the approach. It does not describe a real enterprise or allocation. Suppose a small service team agrees a special award arrangement in advance. After a batch of projects, a proposal will consider customer development, delivery quality and continuing service within an established resource limit. An appropriately authorized manager will approve it. Existing wages and supplier payments remain subject to their original arrangements. The operating manager organizes the records and proposes an award. A delivery team member notices that work resolving an after-sales problem has been omitted. The first step is to supplement the work record and check whether the work occurred, which period it belongs to and whether it falls within the agreed assessment scope. Then examine whether the assessment and calculation need adjustment. The issue concerns contribution facts and application of the rules. A channel partner then asks to exchange this award directly for company equity. That concerns a different kind of interest. Whether authority for the special award also covers a long-term equity arrangement needs a separate check. Recognition of a contribution does not turn award approval into a completed equity grant. The suggestion may be considered, but it needs the procedure appropriate to that interest. Finally, the team finds that the original rule does not explain continuing service clearly enough. Improving the rule requires a separate discussion. Someone with the appropriate authority must confirm when the change applies and notify the people concerned. Investigation of the omitted record continues under the relevant basis, while the later rule change has its own record. One discussion has raised three issues: a contribution record, the type of interest and a rule change. Separating them makes it possible to identify who should handle each issue, what to check and how to proceed. ![Figure 2: Allocation decisions, implementation, objections and review](https://yutengfei.com/journal/value-creation-distribution-authority/materials/en/asset-02.svg) _Figure 2 presents a governance proposal. Contribution records, questions of authority and improvements to future rules are handled separately. Internal review should not close participants' existing legitimate channels for raising concerns and seeking resolution._ [Download Figure 2 as SVG](https://yutengfei.com/journal/value-creation-distribution-authority/materials/en/asset-02.svg) ## 7\. Test an existing arrangement with three questions When examining an allocation mechanism, I suggest starting here. **First, what is being allocated, and are its basis and source clear?** Are existing commitments, new incentives and long-term interests handled separately? Do contribution records correspond to the scope of resources available? **Second, who has authority to decide, and are the limits and responsibilities clear?** Who proposes, checks, approves and implements? Who handles matters outside the scope? How are personal interests in the outcome handled? **Third, if someone disagrees, how can they raise the issue and who reviews it?** How are record errors, calculation differences and disputes over authority handled? How are outcomes explained, and how are future rules changed? Clear answers give percentages, scores and systems a stable basis. Where the answers are missing, address those gaps first. ## Continuing to test the arrangement My understanding of shared creation and shared rewards connects collective effort with specific decisions. Contributions deserve serious consideration. The basis of a decision should also be explainable. Fairness is difficult to settle in a single sentence. We can begin by making the facts, evidence, authority and review arrangements behind each allocation concrete. Participants should understand how their input is treated and where they can take a question. That gives the mechanism a chance to be tested and improved through continuing cooperation, gradually building trust. [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Applies to original text unless otherwise stated; excludes third-party materials. Downloading or machine reading does not extend the existing license or separately authorize derivatives, commercial use or model training. [AI usage guide](https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/ai/) --- # The Business Logic and Implementation of Stakeholder Value Co-creation and Sharing - Author: Andrew David W.Y. - Source: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/stakeholder-co-creation-method/ - Version: V1.0 - Published: 2026-10-19 - Revised: 2026-10-19 - Content status: Full text published - Content type: Methods (methods) - Research topics: Stakeholder Capital Governance (stakeholder-governance) - Ecosystem perspectives: Resource Ecosystem (resource) · Customer Ecosystem (customer) · Operations & Management Ecosystem (operations) · Capital Ecosystem (capital) ## Use this resource **Purpose**: How can contributions from consumers, employees, merchants, suppliers, and partners support lasting company value? This article connects genuine operations, contribution assessment, differentiated rights and benefits, governance, digital systems, and reinvestment into a practical framework for continuing cooperation. **Conditions for use**: Check that the subject, objective and constraints fit the task. Confirm any conditions that the article does not specify. **Methods · Steps, inputs and completion criteria** **Evidence and validation limits**: Use this method to design and discuss collaboration mechanisms. Specific arrangements for contributions, rights, and authority should follow the rules and documents confirmed by the parties. No separate external-validation result is recorded for this article. Publication does not establish effectiveness; check the evidence, assumptions and limits in the text. This is a readable, citable knowledge resource, not an installed Skill. When using it with AI, retain its sources and limits and review the output. ## Full article A company's continuing development depends on contributions from many people in different positions. Shareholders provide capital, teams organize operations, employees contribute labor and capabilities, consumers generate genuine demand, merchants and suppliers provide goods and services, channels connect markets, and strategic partners create opportunities for collaboration. Companies also operate within communities, public services, and a wider social environment. Together, these contributions form the foundations of a business. They raise three questions that deserve careful answers: who creates the company's value, how can each party's contribution be identified, and how should the results of the company's growth respond to those contributions? This approach to stakeholder value co-creation and sharing develops around these questions. It seeks to connect transactions, operations, organization, rights and benefits, governance, and capital, so that an initial involvement may develop into continuing cooperation. Continuing cooperation may then accumulate long-term value, while arrangements grounded in evidence allow that value to support the joint development of participants and the company. The central idea can be expressed as follows: **create value through genuine business activity; understand its sources through roles and contributions; respond to different inputs through differentiated rights and benefits; support implementation with digital systems and governance procedures; and reinvest the resources gained through development in the next round of value creation.** Understanding this idea requires considering value creation, contribution identification, the allocation of rights and benefits, and business continuity together. Rewards without an operating foundation are difficult to sustain. Growth without clear rules for cooperation also makes lasting relationships difficult to maintain. [![From Co-creation to Lasting Cooperation](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-co-creation-method/mechanism-en.svg)](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-co-creation-method/viewer-en.html) The logic of stakeholder value co-creation and sharing: genuine operations, contribution assessment, differentiated rights and benefits, authorized execution, and reinvestment. [Open diagram ↗](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-co-creation-method/viewer-en.html)[Download SVG ↓](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-co-creation-method/mechanism-en.svg) ## 1\. Company Value Emerges from Continuing Cooperation Among Multiple Parties ### Understanding value creation requires seeing the full network of cooperation We can begin to understand a company through its products, revenue, and profit, and then ask how those results come about. Products require research and development, procurement, production, and supply. Sales require demand, trust, customer settings, and channels. Delivery is followed by service, feedback, repeat purchases, and improvement. Management teams organize these activities, while capital provides resources and supports risk-bearing for some of them. When we broaden our view from an individual position to the supply chain, value chain, and organizational ecosystem, it becomes apparent that many business results cannot be achieved by a single participant alone. A salesperson's completed sale depends on product quality, supply capacity, brand trust, and after-sales service. Repeat purchases at a store are also influenced by product selection, pricing, service, and customer relationships. The stakeholder perspective therefore broadens how we examine a company. It asks business leaders to understand how different parties contribute to value creation, and how the company's arrangements for cooperation and distribution will affect their participation in the next round. The ownership of a company and the joint creation of its value need separate explanations. Recognizing that multiple parties create value does not automatically give every participant the same ownership, economic rights, or decision-making rights. Each right still requires a clear source, specific conditions, and appropriate procedures. ### Long-term cooperation requires participants to see a reason to remain involved After a transaction is completed, a company can simply record the revenue, or it can continue to develop the relationships left by that transaction. Consumers who receive satisfactory products and services may return. Merchants with reliable supply and effective tools may expand their cooperation. Employees whose capabilities and responsibilities are recognized may continue contributing. Channels whose actual contributions receive an appropriate response are also better placed to develop markets over the long term. This raises a practical business question: when participants accumulate value for the company's future, should their only return be a single payment in the current period? If cooperation requires sustained commitment, return arrangements should also consider time, responsibility, risk, and the process through which future results are created. Long-term cooperation therefore needs understandable relationships. Participants should know what they are responsible for, the company should know what contributions it needs, and both sides should be able to assess inputs and returns under clear rules. Only then do a shared endeavor, shared interests, and a shared future have a chance to become part of actual operations. ### Shared value and long-term shareholder value can support each other More reliable supply, stronger teams, more repeat purchases, and more effective collaboration are important conditions for continuing operations. Investing in these relationships may also support the long-term business value that shareholders care about. That connection must be tested through operating results. A company cannot assume that every investment will generate a return simply because it aspires to mutual benefit. Nor should it repeatedly damage relationships that support its future operations in pursuit of short-term indicators. The plan's basic principle is that value creation comes first, contribution is an important basis for distribution, and long-term development determines the scope for continued sharing. Fairness needs to account for actual roles and responsibilities, while efficiency needs to be understood within the conditions that make continuing cooperation possible. ## 2\. Current Operations Should Build Lasting Capabilities and Assets ### From possessing resources to organizing them The plan understands capital as the ability to integrate resources, create value, amplify value, and allocate resources for the future. This understanding shifts business leaders' attention beyond money in an account toward the resources and capabilities that support long-term creation. Money can purchase equipment, build systems, and support business activity. Whether resources become effective also depends on how they are organized. Whether users stay, suppliers reliably fulfill commitments, data improves operations, and talent develops the ability to collaborate all influence the actual value of those resources. This broader scope of capital remains conditional on resources being scarce and capable of creating long-term company value. The original plan's ten categories of capital offer the following ways to examine what a business is building over time. The explanations help clarify operating relationships; they are not financial recognition or valuation conclusions. | Dimension of capital | What to look for in long-term accumulation | | --- | --- | | Human capital | Labor, professional skills, management experience, and organizational collaboration | | User capital | Genuine user relationships, continued use, trust, and repeat purchases | | Customer-setting capital | Stores, service networks, and transaction settings that meet genuine demand | | Market capital | Market reach, channel coverage, and the ability to enter markets | | Digital capital | Usable data, digital systems, and the ability to analyze operating problems | | Brand capital | Recognition, trust, reputation, and continuing identification with the brand's value | | Supply-chain capital | Product supply, fulfillment efficiency, cost control, and conditions for collaboration | | Industrial capital | Real-economy businesses, production and operating capabilities, and a foundation for continuing supply | | Social capital | Social relationships, conditions for cooperation, and a basis of trust in company activity | | Financial capital | Financial support and the ability to connect with long-term capital resources | These dimensions remind us that long-term value depends on the continuing contribution of resources. Resource counts, contact lists, and the scale of data reveal only some of the conditions. We must also examine whether those resources are used effectively and whether they actually improve operations. ### A transaction can produce several kinds of business outcomes Beyond revenue, a sale may leave information about user preferences, product feedback, fulfillment experience, directions for service improvement, and opportunities for further cooperation. Through continued operations, this information and these relationships may develop into better product selection, more reliable supply, lower collaboration costs, and stronger brand trust. Business management therefore has two time horizons. In the current period, it must address revenue, costs, profit, and cash flow. Over the longer term, it must develop user relationships, platform networks, supply-chain capabilities, brand assets, innovative capacity, and defensible industry advantages. The two horizons need to support each other. Current business provides resources for long-term development, while accumulated capabilities improve the conditions for subsequent operations. Expansion without capabilities that endure may raise costs as the business grows. Long-term investments that fail to connect with genuine demand are also unlikely to receive sustained support. ### Operating returns and capital value need separate explanations Business activity generates revenue and profit, while cash flow reflects the actual movement of money in and out. Profit differs from cash flow, and growth on paper does not directly represent money available for distribution. Equity and capital markets involve expectations about a company's future operating capabilities. Value created by real-economy businesses and capabilities accumulated by platforms may find further expression through equity and capital markets, creating conditions for financing, mergers and acquisitions, and subsequent development. Those expectations still need an operating foundation. A short-term price increase cannot substitute for products, users, profitability, cash flow, or improvements in governance. Connections to capital can expand available resources, but they also bring corresponding responsibilities and risks. Likewise, investors buying shares on a public market and operating participants receiving long-term incentives under formal mechanisms follow different paths. They cannot be reduced to an automatic route from participating in business activity to receiving shares. ## 3\. Understanding Co-creation Through Different Roles ### Clarify each role before discussing partnership arrangements Stakeholders encompass a broad range of parties, while actual operations require workable divisions of responsibility. Consumers, employees, suppliers, channels, capital providers, and other social parties participate in different ways. The same tasks and indicators cannot be applied to everyone. The original plan discusses value-creation roles, business participants, and recipients of long-term sharing from different perspectives. Its seven partner categories offer a useful way to explain seven functions in the operating network. | Role | Primary function | Operating contributions to be developed | | --- | --- | --- | | Consumer partners | Generate genuine demand and user relationships | Consumption, repeat purchases, activity, and word of mouth | | Store partners | Develop customer settings and provide service | Local operations, service experience, and lasting user relationships | | Channel partners | Connect the business with additional markets | New users, new merchants, and effective market coverage | | Platform partners | Organize collaboration and the operating ecosystem | Operating efficiency, digital support, and ecosystem development | | Industry partners | Provide products and an operating foundation | Product quality, supply collaboration, and industrial performance | | Strategic partners | Connect key resources and collaboration opportunities | Resource cooperation, industry collaboration, and sustained support | | Capital partners | Support resource allocation and development | Capital investment, resource integration, and capital-market connections | These seven functions form an operating relationship: consumption brings users together; stores provide customer settings; channels expand markets; platforms organize the ecosystem; industry provides the foundation; strategy connects resources; and capital supports further development. This table does not replace the identification of all stakeholders. Employees and core teams perform continuing work in operations, management, and execution. Suppliers, creditors, communities, and public bodies also occupy their own positions in the network of relationships. Companies need to define their participation in relation to actual business, rather than overlooking their contributions because a particular partnership diagram does not list them separately. ### Collaboration between roles determines whether value can be created Consumers express demand, stores and channels bring that demand to the platform, the platform coordinates supply and service, industry partners provide products and fulfillment capabilities, and strategic and capital partners help secure the conditions needed for further development. The value of each part needs to be considered within these relationships of mutual dependence. To illustrate this collaboration, imagine a store completing an order: a channel brings in the customer, the store provides the service, a supplier provides the goods, the platform supplies systems and settlement, and employees carry out the work. This is an illustrative example of how the relationships work, not a statement of verified project performance. If every part counts the entire sale as its own independent contribution, the result is double counting. Conversely, attributing the whole outcome only to the person who closes the sale overlooks the preceding supply, service, and organizational work. Dividing responsibilities therefore needs to be followed by decisions about how contributions are recorded and attributed. ### Relationships can deepen, while rights require separate confirmation The original plan envisages consumers progressing from a single purchase to long-term active users, ecosystem participants, brand advocates, and long-term value contributors. Strategic cooperation may similarly deepen from resource cooperation into strategic collaboration, joint ecosystem development, and longer-term capital cooperation. These paths describe possible directions in which relationships may develop. Moving to a further stage still depends on actual contributions, the intentions of both parties, formal rules, and the necessary conditions. A change of title cannot by itself establish that rights have changed. Early trust and the timing of involvement can also provide context for understanding cooperation. Trust, length of involvement, or access to resources, however, cannot by themselves replace specific contribution assessment and the confirmation of rights and benefits. ## 4\. Contribution Assessment Must Consider Both Results and Responsibilities ### Begin with four questions The original plan poses four basic questions: **who contributes, what do they contribute, how much do they contribute, and for how long?** “Who contributes” identifies the participant and role. “What do they contribute” distinguishes money, labor, products, users, technology, channels, and collaboration. “How much” seeks an observable measure of the contribution. “For how long” incorporates time and continuing responsibility into the assessment. These questions need to be considered together. The same sales amount may involve different costs and service responsibilities. The introduction of similar resources may entail either a one-off introduction or continuing coordination. Assessment must explain these differences to provide a basis for arranging returns. ### Use different indicators for different roles For consumers, relevant indicators can include spending, repeat-purchase frequency, activity, referral contributions, and user lifetime value: the value a user relationship produces over a period of time. Stores can be assessed through transactions, user numbers, service quality, and repeat purchases. Channels can be assessed through new users, new merchants, effective coverage, and operating efficiency. Platforms need to consider operating efficiency, user and merchant growth, the usefulness of data, and ecosystem collaboration. Industry partners need to consider sales, gross profit, supply efficiency, product quality, and collaborative value. Strategic and capital roles require further judgment based on the effects of resources, sustained support, and contributions to long-term value. These indicators should not all be reduced to transaction volume. Quality, efficiency, risk-bearing, and improvements in collaboration also influence the company's future operating conditions. Measurable outcomes require verification of their authenticity and actual effect. Contributions that are more difficult to quantify require a clear basis for evaluation. Data records can assist judgment, but they cannot automatically assign an accurate price to every form of value. ### Six factors jointly inform the assessment of rights and benefits The original plan identifies role, contribution, time, responsibility, risk, and strategic value as parallel considerations. Together, they support a multifactor judgment: what work a person undertakes, what they actually contribute, how long they remain involved, what responsibilities they carry, what risks they bear, and how important their role is at a particular stage. Strategic value changes with the stage of development. The capabilities needed for market entry may differ from those needed for operating at scale or reorganizing the business. A dynamic assessment should explain changes in circumstances and the grounds for judgment, so that participants understand why adjustments are made. The source material provides neither uniform weights for these six factors nor a general algorithm that converts them directly into cash or shares. Institutional arrangements still need to be developed around actual business, defining the specific connections between indicators, assessment methods, and rights. ### Genuine business is the shared foundation of assessment and incentives Contribution assessment needs to be traceable to real products, procurement, transactions, services, and operations. Repeatedly manufacturing transactions with subsidies or recording circular movements of funds as performance undermines the purpose of assessment. The sustainability of an incentive also requires checking where it comes from. Consumer rewards may draw on reasonable product margins, merchant concessions, and platform operating income. Long-term incentives require clarity about the source of the underlying rights, the conditions of granting them, and the responsible party. Specific arrangements must also address the attribution of collaborative outcomes, the treatment of overlapping contributions, and the distinction between existing wages, payments for goods, commissions, and additional long-term incentives. These questions directly affect whether distribution is fair and whether the rules can operate over time. ## 5\. Responding to Different Contributions Through Differentiated Rights and Benefits ### Forms of return should fit the cooperative relationship Consumers buying goods first need appropriate products, prices, and service. Merchants joining a platform need effective supply, tools, customer traffic, and operating conditions. Employees undertaking continuing work need clear compensation and development arrangements. When long-term partners assume longer-term responsibilities, corresponding long-term incentives and capital cooperation become additional considerations. Sharing can therefore take place at several levels. | Level of rights and benefits | Main content | Questions to clarify in the design | | --- | --- | --- | | Consumer benefits | Discounts, points, membership services, repeat-purchase rewards, and product redemption | Source, eligibility, duration, and rules of use | | Business and operating rights and benefits | Returns connected with specific services, operations, and collaboration | Business basis, contribution boundaries, calculation, and settlement | | Long-term incentives | Explore employee share ownership, restricted shares, strategic equity, and similar arrangements for eligible parties | Source of rights, acquisition conditions, continuing responsibilities, and formal procedures | | Capital cooperation | Strategic investment, industry cooperation, and capital collaboration | Parties, inputs, risks, rights and obligations, and exit arrangements | | Governance participation | Participation in relevant matters according to responsibilities and authorization | Decision-making scope, accountability, oversight, and adjustment procedures | These arrangements can complement each other, but each needs a separate definition. Consumer points, business remuneration, equity, and governance authority perform different functions. A general reference to “sharing” cannot replace specific explanations. ### Consumer benefits should primarily support the consumption relationship Consumer incentives aim to improve the benefits customers experience, encourage repeat purchases, build lasting membership relationships, and strengthen the willingness to remain involved. They should rest on ordinary demand for products and services. The original plan states explicitly: “Consumption is consumption; incentives are benefits. Consumption must not be presented as an investment of any kind.” This establishes an important boundary for consumer relationships. Rewards following a purchase require an explanation of their basis and conditions. Prospective capital returns must not be used to induce consumers to misunderstand the nature of the purchase. The original also includes four illustrative membership tiers: RMB 100, RMB 500, RMB 2,000, and RMB 5,000 or above, each corresponding to different membership benefits. These are tier designs in that version of the business plan. The material does not clarify whether the amounts are per transaction or cumulative, so they cannot be used to infer an equity purchase price, a fixed rebate, or a share allocation. ### Long-term incentives should connect continuing creation with continuing responsibility For those who continue to build the business, a company may explore longer-term arrangements under appropriate conditions, giving their contributions an opportunity to connect with its future. The purpose is to extend the horizon of cooperation and provide incentives that support capability building, sustained commitment, and responsibility. Such arrangements still need to answer specific questions: who provides the reward, on what basis it is granted, what conditions apply, what continuing responsibilities are required, and what happens when circumstances change. A label without these details is unlikely to give participants stable expectations. The shareholder framework for long-term value contributors proposed in the original plan is a strategic design. It does not establish that participants have already acquired shares. Nor must all stakeholders receive the same form of return, or all become shareholders. ### Better conditions for cooperation are also a form of sharing For merchants, procurement costs, inventory turnover, customer acquisition, repeat purchases, cash flow, and online operating capabilities often have a direct effect on business continuity. By improving these conditions through supply chains, digital tools, user operations, marketing, and data support, a platform creates value for its partners. Physical stores, online marketplaces, group buying, privately managed customer channels, livestreaming, and corporate procurement can improve operations only when they work together with products, replenishment, fulfillment, and accounting. Assessment of a sharing mechanism should therefore also examine whether participants have become more capable of running their businesses, whether unnecessary collaboration costs have fallen, and whether they have gained the tools and conditions needed to keep creating value. ## 6\. Long-term Sharing Requires Clear Governance and Authorization ### Broaden the consideration of interests while clarifying decision-making responsibility Considering more stakeholders brings specific governance questions: who can confirm contributions, who can decide on distribution, who is accountable for those decisions, and how should conflicting interests be handled? The discussions in the source material also retain questions about the authority to distribute value: on whose behalf do managers act, are they authorized to adjust interests between different parties, and how do they fulfill the responsibilities they have already undertaken? These issues belong alongside discussions of co-creation and long-term sharing. Good intentions can encourage cooperation, but stable rights and benefits still require authorization and procedures. Particularly where equity, securities rights, or major resource arrangements are involved, formal agreements, corporate governance procedures, and applicable rules must establish the source of rights and the basis for approval. ### Different levels of participation should correspond to different responsibilities Participants differ in the information they hold, the responsibilities they bear, and the effects they experience. Different forms of participation may therefore be appropriate. Business collaboration, operating feedback, major decisions, and capital cooperation also require different scopes of authority. The original plan proposes differentiated participation, rights and benefits, governance, and dynamic adjustment. Turning these principles into workable rules requires specifying the scope of matters at each level, the method of authorization, oversight responsibilities, and the way adjustments are made when circumstances change. Broader participation does not require everyone to have equal authority over every matter. Concentrated power also requires corresponding accountability and constraints. ### Transparent rules should extend from recording to confirmation Transparent rules, authentic data, standardized review, and clear authorization are implementation conditions emphasized in the original plan. Participants need to know which actions are recorded, which results enter the assessment, and what conditions allow them to apply for benefits or rights. Reviewers need clear responsibilities and a clear basis for their work. Decisions affecting important rights should be traceable to records, reviews, and authorization. For eligible platform partners, the original sets out this process: **identity registration, review of documentation, confirmation of rights and benefits, and registration of confirmed rights.** This points to the need to connect identity, evidence, and rights in a continuous process before arrangements can be put into effect. The process does not mean that every participant has already acquired rights. The original's proposal to begin relevant procedures, in principle, within seven working days after public trading in the listed company's shares begins is also only a conditional proposed starting point. It cannot be interpreted as a promise that all entitlements will be fulfilled within seven days. ### Protecting participants should be part of everyday operations Consumer rights, product quality, after-sales complaints, business registration, intellectual property, tax, and transaction compliance all affect cooperative relationships. How a platform makes rules, handles disputes, and affects participants when rules change also falls within governance. A framework intended for long-term cooperation must further specify arrangements for objections, exits, losses, difficulties in fulfillment, and changes to rules. These are matters that need to be completed when moving from principles to implementation. A shared vision cannot replace them. The stability of a community is reflected both in how it shares the benefits of growth and in how it assumes responsibility and protects confirmed rights when cooperation encounters difficulties. ## 7\. Digital Systems Support Recording, Collaboration, and Settlement ### Start by creating records that can be checked The original plan describes the relationship between technology and institutions through four propositions: digitization makes contributions visible; data makes value measurable; mechanisms allow rights and benefits to be matched; and capital connections allow long-term value to be linked to participation. Understanding this relationship requires retaining the judgments and procedures between those stages. A transaction record initially demonstrates only that a corresponding business activity occurred. Rules are still needed to decide how the contribution is assessed, who confirms it, and which rights or benefits it corresponds to. Digital systems improve the conditions for factual recording and collaboration, giving relevant judgments an evidentiary basis. Data can support the application of rules, while those rules also need to define how data is used. ### Connect operating activities through business systems The six digital systems planned in the original each support specific work. | System | Main work supported | | --- | --- | | SaaS system | Connect applications, marketplaces, merchants, and platform administration; support multiple business formats | | Payment allocation and settlement system | Order reconciliation, merchant payments, platform service income, and partner settlement | | ERP and warehouse system | Procurement, inventory, goods receipts and dispatches, stocktaking, loss reporting, and cost management | | Point-of-sale system | Connect online and offline orders, products, and members | | Weighing system | Identification, barcodes, pricing, and settlement for fresh and bulk goods | | Ordering system | Coordinate ordering, payments, kitchen operations, membership, and orders | These are planned functions. Whether the systems are deployed and interconnected requires separate confirmation. Their methodological value lies in returning cooperative arrangements to actual operations: how purchases occur, how goods move, how orders are fulfilled, and how funds are settled. The correspondence between “order flows, business activity flows, and fund flows” is particularly important. Orders should be traceable to actual goods or services, business activity should have fulfillment records, and settlement should explain the destination and basis of payments. Only then can the returns partners receive be linked to specific business activities. ### Data should also help improve operations Beyond supporting calculations, data can help identify user needs, adjust products, improve supply, support merchant decisions, and raise operating efficiency. It is through continued use that companies have an opportunity to develop better judgment and organizational capabilities. AI should also be understood within this operating relationship. The value of technology depends on whether it solves actual problems: are demand assessments more accurate, is supply more effective, are decisions more timely, and have collaboration costs improved? Between possessing more data or adopting a tool and developing lasting digital competitiveness lie further tasks: data quality, governance, organizational use, and the verification of results. ## 8\. Operating Growth and Connections to Capital Should Support Each Other ### Growth comes from coordination across several activities The original plan uses six flywheels to describe the positive relationships it hopes to develop between operations and capital. | Growth cycle | Relationship envisaged in the plan | | --- | --- | | User cycle | User growth supports repeat purchases, which help establish lasting user relationships | | Merchant cycle | More merchants provide more customer settings, which support genuine transactions | | Supply-chain cycle | Business scale supports centralized procurement, while procurement and collaboration improve cost conditions | | Data cycle | Business activity accumulates data, data assists operations, and operations improve efficiency | | Transaction-scale cycle | Genuine transactions support platform development, which further connects with industry | | Capital-value cycle | Operating performance supports the expression of long-term value, while capital resources support further development | These cycles are proposed mechanisms, and each requires testing. User growth may not lead to repeat purchases. More merchants may create service problems. Greater scale may increase inventory and management costs. Capital-market pricing is also influenced by many conditions, so performance growth cannot be described as a guarantee of higher market capitalization. Business leaders need to examine whether value is genuinely passed between activities. Where growth occurs, where costs rise, and where resources are reinvested all require specific observation. ### The connection from operations to capital involves different stages The original presents a relatively comprehensive proposed chain: **Consumption → Users → Transactions → Data → Supply chain → Revenue → Profit → Industry → Equity → U.S. equity capital markets → Financing → Mergers and acquisitions → Securities digitization → Industrial expansion → Growth in company value.** This chain can be understood at three levels. First, consumption, transactions, supply, and service form the operating foundation; revenue, costs, and profit must be tested against actual business. Second, user relationships, data, supply chains, and industrial organization form lasting capabilities and assets. Third, equity, financing, mergers and acquisitions, and capital-market connections create possibilities for further resource allocation. Each level requires relevant capabilities and conditions. These fifteen activities are not a standard sequence every company must complete, and no one activity automatically ensures the next will occur. The original also proposes stages involving domestic platform scale, value creation from data, global cross-border e-commerce, access to U.S. equity capital markets, and securities digitization. Securities digitization, STOs, and global digital capital networks are exploratory paths to be studied subject to applicable regulatory requirements. They cannot be treated in advance as established capabilities. ### Capital investment should ultimately return to continuing creation Internationalization concerns the reach of markets and cooperation. Capital development concerns where resources come from and how they are allocated. Digital finance concerns possible ways of connecting assets with capital. For stakeholder cooperation, these activities face a common test: do additional resources improve the conditions for continuing value creation? After financing or an acquisition, are there better products, supply, talent, and organizational capabilities? After industrial expansion, do merchants and consumers receive more reliable service? Is the company's long-term value supported by operating evidence? When capital resources return to industry, platforms, and human capability building, one round of development has a chance to support the next round of cooperation. A financing event, a transaction, or a price movement cannot replace this continuing work. ## 9\. Turning Value Principles into Workable Mechanisms for Cooperation ### SCV addresses value; SCVP addresses implementation The original uses SCV to mean Stakeholder Capital Value. It asks who creates value, who continues to build the business, who assumes long-term responsibility, and how long-term contributions can be connected with long-term value. SCVP handles participation and implementation, including participation mechanisms, contribution assessment, differentiated incentives, and long-term value sharing. This allows a distinction between principles and implementation: value principles explain why people cooperate and what is recognized; implementation mechanisms explain how they participate, how contributions and rights are confirmed, and how arrangements are carried out. The source material expands SCVP in two ways, using Plan and Partnership. Its formal name remains to be standardized. To understand the method, we can first focus on the connections between participation, contribution, rights and benefits, and long-term cooperation, rather than treating the naming difference as evidence of two mature institutional frameworks. ### Connect three sets of relationships The first is co-creation within operations: participate together, create value, share it reasonably, and use that sharing to support continued participation. The second connects contributions with rights and benefits: identify contributions, match appropriate rights and benefits, establish long-term incentives, connect with capital when conditions permit, and put the corresponding sharing into practice. The third provides implementation support: business activity produces records, rules guide judgments, governance provides authorization, and systems support calculations and execution. These three relationships need to work together. Without genuine business, returns lack a source. Without contribution assessment, rights and benefits lack a basis. Without authorization and procedures, even discussed arrangements are difficult to implement reliably. ### Develop the mechanisms around specific business activity Drawing on the original plan's thinking, implementation can be organized into the following seven steps. These steps are an operational synthesis of the material; the project still needs to confirm specific arrangements in light of actual conditions. 1. **Clarify needs and shared objectives.** Begin with genuine needs, identify the operating problem to be solved, the project through which it will be addressed, and the capabilities required. Link the list of needs with the list of projects and the list of capabilities. 2. **Identify participants and responsibilities.** Set out each party's work, inputs, and dependencies. Clarify collaboration interfaces and establish a shared direction, stage-specific objectives, and an execution plan. 3. **Establish the basis for observing contributions.** Set indicators by role, specify recording periods, business evidence, and verification methods, and address collaborative attribution and double counting. 4. **Design differentiated returns and identify their sources.** Arrange consumer benefits, business returns, long-term incentives, and capital cooperation separately. Define conditions, responsibilities, periods, and the boundary between existing remuneration and additional incentives. 5. **Establish review and authorization procedures.** Specify who records, reviews, approves, and oversees, and how objections, changes, and exits will be handled. 6. **Connect business systems and settlement.** Make orders, fulfillment, funds, and relevant contribution records reconcilable so that assessment outcomes can enter formal implementation procedures. 7. **Keep improving through actual operation.** Observe operating improvements, participants' experience of benefits, and the cost of applying the rules. When conditions change, make adjustments through pre-agreed procedures and handle confirmed rights and benefits appropriately. The original plan's calls for alignment in thinking, strategy, objectives, mechanisms, and execution can serve as requirements for organizational cooperation. Applying them to work requires further clarity about responsibility, schedules, and how completion of each stage will be assessed. A complete framework still needs to resolve specific questions: how different contributions are compared, how assessments correspond to benefit amounts, where capital-related rights come from and in what quantities, and what each party bears in the event of losses, exits, or difficulties in fulfillment. Explaining these matters one by one is necessary for value principles to enter actual cooperation. ## 10\. Joint Development Requires Investment in Both Industry and People The operating perspective of stakeholder co-creation and sharing considers the development of the company and its participants within the same set of relationships. Companies need industry, tools, technology, and money. They also need people's skills, judgment, sense of responsibility, and ability to cooperate. Investment in industry improves supply conditions, while investment in people improves capabilities and the conditions for participation. Education, training, income expectations, and service support need to work together with products, equipment, and digital systems to create a more durable operating foundation. Entrepreneurs have a responsibility to organize this cooperation: understand the needs of different parties, establish meaningful shared objectives, design workable mechanisms, and take responsibility for operating results and their effects. Mission, responsibility, and social value need to be expressed through product quality, normal settlement, fair rules, continuing service, and the fulfillment of formal commitments. A community can also be understood from different perspectives. A shared endeavor explains why people work together. Shared interests explain how they benefit. Industry collaboration explains how they keep creating value. Capital cooperation explains how they connect with the future. These perspectives are related; they need not be arranged as a ladder of identities that everyone must climb. Within such cooperation, participants should have an opportunity to understand their role. Companies should be able to identify genuine contributions. Arrangements for rights and benefits should have a basis, a source, and accountable parties. Additional resources should return to further creation. The value of a stakeholder mechanism must ultimately show up in these specific relationships: whether cooperation becomes more stable, operations become more capable, long-term commitment receives a reasonable response, and rules remain credible when difficulties arise. The joint growth of companies and participants takes place through successive rounds of real business activity. [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Applies to original text unless otherwise stated; excludes third-party materials. Downloading or machine reading does not extend the existing license or separately authorize derivatives, commercial use or model training. [AI usage guide](https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/ai/) --- # Four-Ecology Governance Model: Contributions, Rights and Collaboration Loops - Author: Andrew David W.Y. - Source: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/ - Version: V1.1 - Published: 2026-10-07 - Revised: 2026-10-07 - Content status: Full text published - Content type: Models (models) - Research topics: Stakeholder Capital Governance (stakeholder-governance) - Ecosystem perspectives: Resource Ecosystem (resource) · Customer Ecosystem (customer) · Operations & Management Ecosystem (operations) · Capital Ecosystem (capital) ## Use this resource **Purpose**: Start with resource, customer, operations and capital relationships. Explain what evidence supports a contribution, what conditions apply to entitlements, who can decide, and how operating feedback informs governance. **Conditions for use**: Check that the subject, objective and constraints fit the task. Confirm any conditions that the article does not specify. **Models · Elements, relationships and assumptions** **Evidence and validation limits**: V1.1 governance application model, building on four ecosystems, six value systems and three layers. For organizational observation and institutional design discussion; actual rights, authority and business outcomes depend on the responsible entity, rules and facts. No separate external-validation result is recorded for this article. Publication does not establish effectiveness; check the evidence, assumptions and limits in the text. This is a readable, citable knowledge resource, not an installed Skill. When using it with AI, retain its sources and limits and review the output. ## Full article ## From ecosystem relationships to governance in practice Many parties create a company's value together. Resources and technology enable supply; labor and management organize delivery; customers' real needs test the product; and capital supports development while bearing agreed risks. Once these relationships are understood, further questions follow: How is each party's contribution confirmed? What establishes its rights and entitlements? Who decides a particular matter? How do execution results inform improvements to operations and rules? The four-ecology governance model connects participation, value creation and governance around these questions. It builds on [Stakeholder Ecosystem Digital Governance: Four Ecosystems, Six Value Systems, and Four Levels of Competition](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-ecosystem-governance/), adding detail at the level of contribution events and governance matters. This edition upgrades the V1 governance map to V1.1, adding value flows across ecosystems, authority for individual matters, the basis of entitlements, and feedback for correction. It supports organizational observation and discussion of institutional design. Specific arrangements must be confirmed for the actual entity, rules and business. ## 1\. Four ecosystems identify who participates and through which relationship | Ecosystem | Main relationship | Contributions to confirm | | --- | --- | --- | | Resource | Production: resources and collaboration | Resources, technology, knowledge, professional outputs and contractual delivery | | Customer | Consumption: trust and co-creation | Genuine consumption, effective use, feedback, co-creation and verified referrals | | Operations and management | Labor and organizational relations: delivery and organization | Labor, R&D, management, professional services and continued fulfillment of responsibilities | | Capital | Investment: funds and risk | Actual funding, clearly defined risk-bearing and agreed capital services | These ecosystems classify relationships. A person can be a supplier, employee, customer and investor at the same time; contributions, responsibilities and entitlements are recorded separately. One output may relate to several collaborative tasks, but counting it more than once for incentives requires an explicit basis in the rules. Each ecosystem is examined through five dimensions: participants, valid contributions, verification and responsibility, rights and conditions, and governance matters. The diagram sets out this structure; the original Chinese interactive map also provides suggested evidence and responsibility arrangements. [![V1.1 governance map: resource, customer, operations and capital ecosystems with a shared governance framework](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/model-en.svg)](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/model-en.svg) Figure 1. Four ecosystems collaborate; entities, rules and entitlements are defined separately. [Open the interactive map (Chinese original): zoom, pan, focus and node details ↗](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/viewer-en.html) ## 2\. How value flows between ecosystems The model's review path is: shared goals and constraints → resource and capital inputs → organized collaboration and acceptance → customer transactions and fulfillment → cost and return accounting → allocation and reinvestment under the rules. This path does not guarantee that inputs will generate returns. Customer needs, actual use, differences in fulfillment, cash receipts and changes in risk may all require adjustments to products, tasks, budgets, incentives and rules. [![Value collaboration and feedback: inputs, delivery, customer fulfillment, accounting, allocation and reinvestment under rules and operational feedback](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/value-flow-en.svg)](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/value-flow-en.svg) Figure 2. Arrows show review and feedback relationships; they do not establish achieved business results. The four ecosystems, six value systems and governance process use different levels of observation. The core value system aligns goals; the production system enables supply; the sales system connects customers; the returns system accounts for results; the amplification system examines reinvestment and expansion; and the operations and management system runs through collaboration and rules. Their relationships overlap; there is no one-to-one mapping between the four ecosystems and these systems. ## 3\. Confirm contributions, then establish the basis of entitlements A contribution must at least identify who participated and in which role, the task completed, the output produced, where the evidence is held, who confirms it, the applicable rule version and its current status. Once a contribution is confirmed, its contractual relationship, eligibility, responsibilities, risks and entitlement conditions must be stated. A long-term account records contributions and their changes, while linking each type of service, incentive, governance and capital entitlement to its own basis. Existing obligations—such as supplier payments, compensation and capital contracts—are listed separately from additional co-creation incentives. New arrangements must identify their resource source, accounting scope, budget or actual available funds, and vesting, adjustment and exit conditions. Revenue, profit, cash, valuation gains and contribution records have distinct meanings and cannot substitute for one another. Governance eligibility does not automatically confer equity or investment returns. A contribution record does not grant authority over every matter. This model prescribes no universal contribution score, equity-conversion formula, allocation ratio or investment return. ## 4\. Define decision authority for each matter | Stage | Questions to clarify | | --- | --- | | Proposal and participation | Who may initiate a matter, submit evidence or join discussion? | | Review and decision | Who reviews it, who makes the final decision, and what is the source and limit of their authority? | | Execution | Who implements it, with which resources, deadline and acceptance conditions? | | Verification and oversight | Who checks results and handles objections, and how are conflicts of interest managed through recusal? | Eligibility to participate and discuss, decision authority, execution responsibilities and oversight powers are assigned separately. A particular matter may use consultation, delegated decisions or voting, with its procedure grounded in the applicable rules. Institutional development follows six steps: identify, define, verify, establish records, allocate, and operate and iterate. Matters follow seven stages: propose, discuss, review, decide, execute, verify and archive. The former establishes rules; the latter records decisions and execution under them. ## 5\. Test the model through three feedback loops - **Operations loop:** demand, supply and delivery, customer fulfillment, quality and cash results feed back into operational adjustments. - **Contribution loop:** tasks, output evidence, confirmation, entitlement arrangements, and verification or revision retain a traceable history. - **Governance loop:** proposals, review and decisions, execution and verification lead to corrections, rule revisions or new proposals. Exceptions, duplicate records, revocation, appeals, breach, exit and major risks require named responsible roles and clear handling statuses. Rule revisions explain how old and new versions connect; historical records retain their sources and changes. Operational review observes real demand, delivery, collaboration efficiency, costs, cash flow and risk. ## 6\. Applying it to a gold mineral resource project Research and implementation of a gold mineral resource project provide a collaboration example. The responsible entity first defines research goals, budget and authority. Resource partners submit mineral-resource information, conditions of use, testing and technical materials. The operations team develops research and engineering plans. Customer relationships verify real demand, recording expressions of interest separately from orders. Capital arrangements are reviewed against actual documents, with commitments, received funds and uses confirmed separately. Information gaps, testing discrepancies, cost changes or insufficient demand send the relevant assumptions back to research and review. Only actual delivery, fulfillment, costs and cash receipts enter the corresponding accounts. Existing obligations, applicable incentives and verification are then handled under contracts and rules. The example explains how to use the model; it does not establish that a specific project has been verified, invested in or generated returns. Company matters and project matters must each specify their applicable rules and decision authority. ## 7\. Entities make decisions; software supports the process The model can serve a particular company or project. Before implementation, define goals, the governance entity, business scope, relationships, rules and authority, then select digital tools. On-chain governance of digital capital and traditional capital governance can use the same governance framework, while separately specifying their instruments, eligibility, documents and execution methods. Wiserunion is Company No. 0 and the first enterprise to apply NST. Wiser Asset is an independent company serving as an asset and governance platform and a provider of software services. NST supports identity, contribution, account, matter and version processes; actual capabilities depend on the product's released scope. Wiserunion's rules do not automatically govern Wiser Asset's investment, financing or project matters, and software records do not replace decisions by the responsible entity. ## Model version and supporting materials V1.1 was revised on 7 October 2026. It retains V1's four-ecosystem relationship structure and adds value collaboration, matter-level authority, the basis of entitlements, feedback and an application example. Practice still needs to establish contribution standards, authority, entitlement conditions, dispute handling, exit, disclosure scope and indicator observation periods. - [Interactive HTML (Chinese original)](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/viewer-en.html) - [Governance structure SVG](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/model-en.svg) - [Value collaboration and feedback SVG](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/value-flow-en.svg) - [Article Markdown](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/article-en.md) - [Complete model Markdown (Chinese original)](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/model-zh.md) - [Model upgrade notes (Chinese original)](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/model-notes.md) - [Original V1 archive (Chinese)](https://yutengfei.com/journal/four-ecology-governance-model/v1-original.zip) Further reading: [Four Ecosystems, Six Value Systems, and Four Levels of Competition](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-ecosystem-governance/); [WISERUNION governance practice](https://wiserunion.com/). ## Related reading - [Value Distribution When Stakeholder Power and Strategic Contribution Diverge](https://yutengfei.com/en/papers/stakeholder-power-strategic-contribution/) - [Chapter 15 — Contribution Recognition: Recording Co-Creation Clearly](https://yutengfei.com/en/books/stakeholder-capital/read/book-chapter-15/) - [A Conversation with Professor Guo Xiangang: From Management Thought to Digital Securities](https://yutengfei.com/en/blog/guo-xiangang-management-digital-securities/) - [Chapter 17 — Designing Rights: Matching Returns to Contributions, Responsibilities and Risks](https://yutengfei.com/en/books/stakeholder-capital/read/book-chapter-17/) [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Applies to original text unless otherwise stated; excludes third-party materials. Downloading or machine reading does not extend the existing license or separately authorize derivatives, commercial use or model training. [AI usage guide](https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/ai/) --- # Start Small: A Pilot Plan for Stakeholder Collaboration - Author: Andrew David W.Y. - Source: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/stakeholder-collaboration-pilot/ - Version: V1.0 - Published: 2026-10-19 - Revised: 2026-10-19 - Content status: Full text published - Content type: Playbooks (solutions) - Research topics: Stakeholder Capital Governance (stakeholder-governance) - Ecosystem perspectives: Resource Ecosystem (resource) · Customer Ecosystem (customer) · Operations & Management Ecosystem (operations) · Capital Ecosystem (capital) ## Use this resource **Purpose**: Start with one bounded business activity and agree on participants, responsibilities, decision authority, and how contributions will be recorded. A replenishment example shows how to review both business outcomes and the workload of collaboration before expanding, adjusting, or stopping. **Conditions for use**: Check that the subject, objective and constraints fit the task. Confirm any conditions that the article does not specify. **Playbooks · Objectives, combinations and implementation conditions** **Evidence and validation limits**: The example illustrates how to analyze the situation and use the approach. When applying it, substitute actual business records for the example conditions and check the judgment and outcome. No separate external-validation result is recorded for this article. Publication does not establish effectiveness; check the evidence, assumptions and limits in the text. This is a readable, citable knowledge resource, not an installed Skill. When using it with AI, retain its sources and limits and review the output. ## Full article When discussing collaboration among several parties, people can usually describe a shared direction: serve customers together, organize supply, improve operations and share the results as agreed. Doing the work brings more specific questions. Who takes responsibility for the first task? Who commits resources first? What information needs to be shared? Who handles a discrepancy? What must be achieved before it makes sense to continue? I think we can begin with one representative activity whose scope is manageable and whose results can be observed, and run the collaboration from beginning to end. The pilot should answer whether the work can be done, whether each party's inputs can be explained, whether disagreements can be handled and whether continuing is worthwhile. A smaller scope lets us examine the problems more closely. Once there is evidence, we can discuss expansion. The following is a reference arrangement to adapt to the business concerned. ## 1\. Define what this pilot is testing A pilot should start with a specific operating problem. Perhaps order confirmations repeatedly go wrong, stores struggle to coordinate replenishment, supply information arrives late or after-sales issues keep being passed from person to person. Each can be examined further: where does it happen, whom does it affect, which steps are involved and what do existing records show? Bringing every activity, partner and rights arrangement into the pilot at the outset entangles the problems. Even if results change, it may be difficult to identify which practice made a difference. Define the boundaries: which business activity, which roles, the starting action, the ending result and what will not be addressed this time. Also consider whether the setting is representative. A pilot involving only the easiest partners and orders, or one sustained by unusually intensive attention from the person in charge, may not transfer elsewhere even if it runs smoothly. I would prefer a real, recurring activity that can be observed within acceptable limits. Include ordinary handovers, records, exceptions and reconciliation rather than selecting only the most attractive step. **Keep the scope small while preserving a complete view of the activity's beginning, middle and end.** ## 2\. Put scope, responsibility and authority on the same page Prepare a brief pilot charter before starting. It need not be lengthy. First explain the problem, participation boundaries, resource limits, review method and stopping conditions. | Item | Questions to answer | | --- | --- | | Problem and objective | What needs improvement, what evidence exists, and which changes will be observed? | | Business boundaries | Which activities and parties are included or excluded, and where does the pilot start and end? | | Roles and authority | Who coordinates, executes, collaborates and checks? Who approves launch and significant changes? | | Resources and commitments | What are the limits on staff time, expenses, system changes and service commitments? | | Observation and next steps | When is the review, what information is needed, and what would justify expansion, adjustment, suspension or closure? | In particular, distinguish responsibility for advancing the work from authority to approve it. A coordinator may collect issues, arrange discussions and follow progress without having authority to increase a budget, change cooperation terms or make commitments for others. Those decisions require confirmation by someone with the relevant authority. Four working roles can be identified: coordination, frontline execution, collaborating parties and review. Coordination connects the work. Frontline participants complete actions and record problems. Collaborating parties explain their conditions and responsibilities. Reviewers check records, hear different views and submit their assessment to the appropriate decision-maker. People in a small team may hold several roles, depending on the matter. If an assessment is challenged, disclose the interests involved and arrange review by someone without a direct conflict. Where the conditions are not met, defer the relevant decision. Clear authority and responsibility tell people whom to approach when conditions change and which matters require a pause for renewed confirmation. ## 3\. Explain the rules before recording contributions People may contribute different things to a collaboration. Some supply goods, handle customer needs, arrange deliveries or maintain systems. Others coordinate and resolve errors. Looking only at final sales can miss much of this work. Start by recording basic facts: who did what, which business event it concerned, what can be checked, what additional work was undertaken and which exceptions arose. Then discuss how those inputs should be assessed. **Fact records, contribution assessments and allocation decisions each need their own basis.** A contribution record is not automatically a claim to a reward, equity or greater decision-making authority. If the pilot includes rewards, define eligible participants, the funding source, approved limits, calculation basis, confirmation and settlement conditions. Future financing or unrealized value cannot replace a present payment arrangement. A pilot without rewards can still test collaboration and recordkeeping. Agree new rewards separately. Existing payments for goods, wages and promised services continue under their original arrangements. Provide a route for different views: who corrects a record, who reviews a disputed assessment and who approves a rule change? Retain the version and scope after a change, including its effective date and treatment of past events. Do not quietly change the basis and apply it retrospectively to people's inputs. Limit data collection as well. Collect only information the team is authorized to obtain and needs for this collaboration. Define who may see it, what they may do and how long it is retained. Start with necessary information before deciding whether more is needed. ![Figure 1: Boundaries, roles and operating structure for a small collaboration pilot](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-collaboration-pilot/materials/en/asset-01.svg) _Figure 1 is a reference operating structure connecting tasks, execution, records and review. New commitments and rights arrangements still need the relevant confirmation._ [Download Figure 1 as SVG](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-collaboration-pilot/materials/en/asset-01.svg) ## 4\. Put the pilot into a fictional replenishment activity The following situation was created to explain the reference arrangement. It does not describe a real enterprise. Several stores find that the same product is sometimes out of stock and sometimes overstocked. The stores, supplier and delivery provider want to test whether replenishment can be coordinated better. Limit the pilot to one product category, a defined group of stores and one supply-and-delivery chain. Observe the process from a store's request through supply confirmation, delivery receipt and discrepancy handling to reconciliation for that batch. The questions are whether demand can be confirmed promptly, handover errors reduced, and urgent replenishment and inventory burdens improved. Existing purchasing relationships and payment responsibilities remain governed by their agreements. | Step | What participants should clarify | Evidence to retain | | --- | --- | --- | | Store request | What is needed, what stock and inbound quantities exist, and when is replenishment required? | Necessary demand, inventory and in-transit records | | Supply confirmation | How much can be supplied, when, and how will unmet needs be reported? | Confirmed quantities, timing and exceptions | | Delivery and receipt | Who hands over, how are differences confirmed, and who handles exceptions? | Dispatch, receipt, discrepancy and resolution records | | Review and reconciliation | What is complete, what remains pending, and what extra inputs did each party make? | Business reconciliation, exception handling and input records | Set resource limits together: transaction volume, coordination hours, additional delivery costs and acceptable system changes. They cannot keep increasing indefinitely. Obtain renewed approval before exceeding the agreed scope. The observation period should cover a meaningful business cycle and reflect how often the main problems occur. One successful delivery does not justify immediate rollout, and a pilot should not continue indefinitely without an ending condition. At a stage review, list unfinished deliveries, reconciliation and after-sales matters separately. Distinguish results that can already be assessed from those needing more observation. This pilot first tests whether collaboration improves. It does not promise higher sales or lower costs in advance, or require a single pilot to settle the entire long-term sharing mechanism. ## 5\. Assess operating results and participation burdens together After a pilot has run for a while, people may first count orders completed, records entered and meetings held. These show whether some activities took place. We still need to examine what happened in the business itself. In the replenishment example, check changes in shortages and excess stock, urgent coordination, customer waiting and previously uncounted costs borne by suppliers and delivery providers. I suggest reviewing four aspects. | Aspect | Questions | | --- | --- | | Business and experience | Has the original problem improved, and have new problems appeared? | | Collaboration and burdens | Are responsibilities clearer, do parties want to continue, and who bears additional work? | | Records and judgments | Can key records be checked, have exceptions been handled, and what remains uncertain? | | Cost and capacity | Are inputs within limits, can more business be supported, and what resources would continuation need? | Agree the observation definitions before starting, in terms everyone can understand. Keep periods, included activities and input calculations as consistent as possible. Record significant changes in volume, prices, season or supply conditions. A comparison may provide useful clues without establishing that every change resulted from this mechanism. Discuss improvements and deterioration together. Stores may have fewer shortages but much more stock; orders may move faster only because staff work sustained overtime. These situations require further judgment. Completed forms show that recording work was done. Whether collaboration deserves to continue depends on actual results and the burdens carried by the parties. Where evidence is insufficient, state what cannot be confirmed. If more observation is worthwhile, specify the missing information and the permitted next stage, and obtain confirmation from the appropriate decision-maker. Defer expansion in the meantime. ![Figure 2: Stage review and decisions to expand, adjust or stop a pilot](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-collaboration-pilot/materials/en/asset-02.svg) _Figure 2 connects stage review to subsequent decisions. If an agreed mandatory stopping condition is triggered during execution, suspend the relevant new pilot actions without waiting for the final review._ [Download Figure 2 as SVG](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-collaboration-pilot/materials/en/asset-02.svg) ## 6\. The next step may be expansion, adjustment or closure ### Expand: establish that the next scope can be supported There is a basis for discussing expansion when the original problem has demonstrably improved, major exceptions have been handled, participants want to continue and costs and resources remain manageable. Before expanding, examine how the next scope differs. A new product category, different partners or greater volume may require different recording, coordination and review arrangements. Increase one defined scope, provide the resources, responsibilities and authority it needs, and continue checking. Pilot results do not replace a judgment about organization-wide rollout. ### Adjust: specify the problem and test again Some steps may work while others remain unclear. Revise the particular areas concerned. Perhaps demand confirmation improved but change notices still arrive too late, or recordkeeping itself created considerable work. State the problem, proposed change, responsible person and new observation conditions before deciding whether to retry. Retain the previous version's records. People should be able to check what changed, why and which results remain unexplained. ### Stop: settle responsibilities already undertaken Discuss closure if the pilot exceeds its scope, costs or risks become unmanageable, cooperation conditions cannot be met, or there is no basis to proceed. Agreed conditions such as unauthorized new commitments, serious reconciliation differences or an inability to safeguard ordinary performance should also trigger suspension of the relevant new pilot actions and a defined response. Before resumption, establish the cause, corrective measures and new execution conditions, then obtain authorized confirmation. Suspending or closing a pilot does not automatically end existing responsibilities. Someone must take responsibility for outstanding orders, incurred expenses, unresolved disputes, and information handling under agreed access and retention requirements. Resolving these matters establishes where the pilot ended and which lessons can be retained. ## 7\. Make one activity explainable and checkable first To me, the most useful result of a small collaboration pilot is that previously vague problems become specific. People can explain who did what, which coordination worked, what needs changing and which conditions further investment requires. Before formal launch, ask again: 1. Can we state the problem in one sentence? 2. Do participants understand the scope, input limits and stopping conditions? 3. Can we identify the people responsible for execution, review and approval? 4. Is there a clear way to handle disagreement and rule changes? 5. What evidence will determine whether to expand, adjust or stop? With workable answers, begin within the confirmed scope. Fill remaining gaps first rather than expecting one pilot to solve everything at once. A clear account of this activity, including its conditions and limits, gives later cooperation a foundation it can use. * * * [Download the accompanying Pilot Charter, Responsibility Allocation and Stage Review Checklist](https://yutengfei.com/journal/stakeholder-collaboration-pilot/materials/en/asset-03.md) [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Applies to original text unless otherwise stated; excludes third-party materials. Downloading or machine reading does not extend the existing license or separately authorize derivatives, commercial use or model training. [AI usage guide](https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/ai/) --- # Contribution records and review: evidence-based evaluation and objections - Author: Andrew David W.Y. - Source: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/contribution-record-review/ - Version: V1.0 - Published: 2026-10-19 - Revised: 2026-10-19 - Content status: Full text published - Content type: Tools (tools) - Research topics: Stakeholder Capital Governance (stakeholder-governance) - Ecosystem perspectives: Resource Ecosystem (resource) · Customer Ecosystem (customer) · Operations & Management Ecosystem (operations) · Capital Ecosystem (capital) ## Use this resource **Purpose**: Record the event, evidence, assessment, and review separately. A fictional entry illustrates how participants can check a judgment about their own contribution, raise an objection, and trace where a revised record was used. **Conditions for use**: Check that the subject, objective and constraints fit the task. Confirm any conditions that the article does not specify. **Tools · Fields, records and interpretation rules** **Evidence and validation limits**: The table and fictional entries show how to retain evidence and review records. When using it, log the document version, reviewer, and outstanding checks. No separate external-validation result is recorded for this article. Publication does not establish effectiveness; check the evidence, assumptions and limits in the text. This is a readable, citable knowledge resource, not an installed Skill. When using it with AI, retain its sources and limits and review the output. ## Full article Many people may help complete a piece of work. Some bring opportunities, some solve problems, and others see it through to the end. If evaluation comes down to “who contributed most”, the discussion can quickly become a set of competing accounts. I would first record what happened. People may disagree about the evaluation, but their views should be checkable against the same event. ## 1\. Record the event before assigning scores Start with an identifiable event. Record the task, period, each participant’s role, what they delivered, and which work was completed jointly with others. Retain sources and document locations when recording facts. Meeting minutes, delivery records, service feedback and system logs may help, but each covers only part of the picture. Not finding a record for someone does not establish that they made no contribution. Give the event and each person’s participation separate identifiers. Many people may participate in one event, and one person may participate in many events. Reference the overall result once and record individual actions separately, so that everyone does not claim the entire team result as their own. ## 2\. Give facts, evaluation and review their own fields The facts field records checkable actions and results. The evaluation field states the rules and perspective behind the judgment. The review field records what was checked, which views were accepted and where disagreement remains. Do not collapse these fields into “excellent performance”. Excellence is a judgment requiring a comparison scope, defined indicators and supporting materials. Evaluators should also state their role, relationship to the matter, and any interests that may require recusal. Receiving materials means only that the files are available. Verified facts still do not guarantee a complete evaluation. An evaluation does not automatically confer a bonus, equity or any other entitlement; the relevant authority and applicable arrangements require separate confirmation. ## 3\. Use six dimensions to ask questions, without assuming a universal score Consider role, contribution, time, responsibility, risk and strategic value. This does not require six numerical scores for every record. Role concerns agreed duties; contribution concerns actual actions and results; time concerns effort and continuity; responsibility concerns what was undertaken and fulfilled; risk concerns what was actually borne; strategic value concerns the relationship to explicitly stated organizational goals. Pre-sales coordination and subsequent maintenance for the same event may need different observation periods. Do not assign zero to the latter simply because the former is easier to count. Leave insufficient evidence pending supplementation, and explain when an evaluation criterion does not apply. If weights are introduced, state their purpose, applicable roles and period, basis and decision authority in advance. Without an agreed basis, retain views by dimension rather than inventing a precise algorithm. ![From contribution facts to evaluation records](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-record-review/materials/en/asset-01.svg) [Download SVG: From contribution facts to evaluation records](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-record-review/materials/en/asset-01.svg) ## 4\. Let participants see judgments concerning them Once records are completed, provide relevant participants with their own facts, evaluation basis and review channel within the permitted access scope. Use suitable excerpts or controlled access for other people’s personal information, trade secrets and restricted materials; do not publish all original files. A participant’s confirmation of facts does not mean agreement with every evaluation. Retain separate descriptions such as “factual error”, “additional evidence”, “objection to the criteria” and “objection to the outcome as applied”. Silence is not automatic consent. Handle late responses, inability to contact someone and extension requests under the procedure agreed in advance, retaining actual notification and handling records. ## 5\. A fictional record The following event and roles are entirely fictional and illustrate only the recording method. Event EV01 concerns organizing materials for a simulated training session. Role A submits a first draft; role B checks references and identifies two source mismatches; role C provides feedback on use at the session. The final materials are a joint result of all three. Do not count that complete result three times. Record R01 covers only role B’s checkable participation: submitting a checklist within the agreed period, identifying two reference issues and proposing actions. Evidence E01 is the checklist; E02 consists of the corresponding passages in the revised draft. Together they support that the issues were raised and the related changes made. They do not independently establish that B caused all improvements in quality. An evaluation might state: this check helped improve the accuracy of the materials; records of time spent and long-term impact are currently insufficient. On reviewing the facts, the participant notes that A also helped identify one issue, so joint participation should be added. The reviewer checks the records and revises the description, retaining the original opinion, additional materials and reasons for revision. Mark unresolved elements as pending evidence rather than requiring one score to settle every disagreement at once. This record predetermines no bonus, weight or entitlement. The exercise produces clearer facts and evaluation and allows joint participation to be added. ## 6\. Provide a separate path for objections An objection should identify the record, disputed content, reasons and available supporting materials. First determine whether it concerns factual correction, missing evidence, rule interpretation or an authorized decision, then refer it to the appropriate role. The original evaluator may explain their view, but should not conduct the final review alone where their own interests or a clear conflict are involved. The applicable organizational arrangements should define recusal, review authority and further handling procedures in advance. A review may uphold or revise the evaluation, seek more evidence before reconsideration, or refer the matter to an authorized role. State the reasons and scope, and notify the relevant people. “Handled” is insufficient if nobody can see what actually changed. ![Raising objections and revising evaluations](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-record-review/materials/en/asset-02.svg) [Download SVG: Raising objections and revising evaluations](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-record-review/materials/en/asset-02.svg) ## 7\. Trace references after a revision If the original evaluation informed performance discussions, incentive reviews or other decisions, send the review result to those stages. Updating a record does not automatically change downstream decisions; the relevant authority and procedures still apply. Keep historical opinions traceable and identify the current version when it is used. Periodically examine which contributions remain difficult to record, which indicators cause double counting, and which roles cannot readily access their own evaluation basis. Adjust the recording method accordingly. A useful contribution table lets others understand what happened, how the evaluation was formed and how to raise a different view. It helps an organization make evaluations checkable; it does not claim to measure every contribution objectively. [Download the blank working table](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-record-review/materials/en/asset-03.md) [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Applies to original text unless otherwise stated; excludes third-party materials. Downloading or machine reading does not extend the existing license or separately authorize derivatives, commercial use or model training. [AI usage guide](https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/ai/) --- # Whose Contribution Matters? A Multi-Role Assessment Workshop - Author: Andrew David W.Y. - Source: https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/ - Version: V1.0 - Published: 2026-10-19 - Revised: 2026-10-19 - Content status: Full text published - Content type: Training (training) - Research topics: Stakeholder Capital Governance (stakeholder-governance) - Ecosystem perspectives: Resource Ecosystem (resource) · Customer Ecosystem (customer) · Operations & Management Ecosystem (operations) · Capital Ecosystem (capital) ## Use this resource **Purpose**: Have participants in different roles assess the same work independently, then exchange perspectives and explain their reasoning. Use six dimensions to distinguish facts, evidence gaps, and disagreements about rules before reviewing the assessment. **Conditions for use**: Check that the subject, objective and constraints fit the task. Confirm any conditions that the article does not specify. **Training · Learning goals, practice and feedback** **Evidence and validation limits**: This exercise uses fictional materials. Compare how participants reached their judgments and review the evidence they used after the exercise. No separate external-validation result is recorded for this article. Publication does not establish effectiveness; check the evidence, assumptions and limits in the text. This is a readable, citable knowledge resource, not an installed Skill. When using it with AI, retain its sources and limits and review the output. ## Full article After a job is finished, business development says it won the customer. Delivery says the earlier promises would have meant little without fulfilment. A supplier says it connected the resources when a problem arose. The person improving the process points out that the method left behind may keep helping after this batch. Each account may contain part of the truth. Once people discuss whose contribution was larger, however, attention can shift from the work to themselves. Everyone presents their own effort and evidence. They may not even be discussing the same thing: this delivery, or long-term cooperation afterwards. I think contribution assessment is worth rehearsing. Give people the same materials, let them change viewpoints and compare their judgments to see where the disagreement lies. **Explain the reasons before discussing the relative weight.** ## 1\. Put the object of assessment in the same place This exercise uses a wholly fictional task: four working roles cooperate to deliver 40 reusable transport boxes and record methods that may be used again. Business development clarified requirements; delivery operations coordinated progress and acceptance; a supply partner arranged an alternative after a standard component was delayed; a process-improvement participant prepared a checklist. At first acceptance, 36 boxes passed and four needed adjustment. All 40 passed final acceptance after correction. The checklist had trial-use records at closeout, and the customer expressed willingness to discuss another batch. Which contributions would you discuss first? Before judging, fix the scope. This assessment covers cooperation from clarification of this batch's requirements to final acceptance, and reusable capability created within that period. Willingness to discuss another batch can be recorded; revenue from a batch that has not occurred cannot be counted in advance. The four role cards are four working viewpoints, not a complete list of stakeholders. Customer assessments, other people's records and later use may require more information. All four roles can see the shared facts. Role cards change the focus of observation without secretly giving one person decisive information. [Open the shared event and four role cards](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-01.md) ## 2\. Use six dimensions to separate different judgments Use role, contribution, time, responsibility, risk and strategic value. They offer questions, not fixed weights or a validated scoring algorithm. **Role examines position and task.** What should business development complete, and what must delivery undertake? Rank and visibility do not prove contribution size. **Contribution examines actual work and effects.** Requirements discussions, resource coordination, exceptions and a checklist can all be recorded. Final delivery of 40 boxes is a shared result. Explain how each party supported it rather than turning it into several unrelated new achievements. **Time separates input from duration of effect.** Extra hours are input records; the useful life of a method is another matter. Twelve hours are not inherently more valuable than six. A long-term effect that cannot yet be observed is not necessarily absent. **Responsibility separates agreement, performance and remedy.** Responsibility for coordinating acceptance and responsibility for causing rework require separate checks. Extensive remedial work does not prove that the person caused the problem. Nor should rescue work conceal an earlier duty left unfulfilled. **Risk returns to conditions at the time.** What could have happened, who actually carried the exposure and what compensation existed? No eventual loss does not mean no earlier risk. Settled expenses should not continue to be described as uncompensated. **Strategic value relates to this stage's objectives.** What constrained delivery, what did the work resolve, and what alternatives existed? “It could not happen without me” needs evidence. Keep unclear dimensions unclear. Missing information means further evidence is needed, not zero contribution or zero risk. [Open the six-dimension foundation sheet and exercise plan](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-02.md) ![Mechanism for multi-role, six-dimension contribution assessment](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-03.svg) Figure 1: Examine shared facts through different working viewpoints and six dimensions, then compare evidence, reasons and reservations. [Download Figure 1 as SVG](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-03.svg) ## 3\. Judge independently before hearing the others A group of four can assign one card to each person. Larger groups can assign teams to roles. Alone, choose two roles and complete each view before comparing them. Do not discuss in the first round. Record two contributions worth discussing first, fact IDs, the relevant dimensions and missing evidence. “Discuss first” sets the order of discussion. It does not determine that the role deserves more. For example, a customer's willingness to discuss another batch supports identifying an opportunity for continued communication. It does not establish additional revenue already earned. Add one sentence: **From this position, which contribution by someone else am I most likely to overlook?** Business development can examine how delivery fulfilled front-end promises. Delivery can check whether clarification reduced misunderstanding. The supplier can examine how the alternative was approved. Process improvement can ask which frontline experience entered the checklist. Checking these relationships helps discussion move beyond who worked hardest. Be careful with records. There is evidence of two rounds of customer discussion, but not yet evidence of how much rework they prevented. The latter may be proposed for validation, not recorded as an achieved effect. [Open the contribution assessment and review worksheet](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-04.md) ## 4\. Change positions and test your reasons Exchange role cards after the first round. The aim is not to argue that the new role should rank first. Explain one contribution you originally overlooked, then check whether you treated your own task as the entire project. The facts cannot change when the role changes. The materials record 12 hours of process improvement and six hours of delivery adjustment. Both involved effort. Complete hours, difficulty and costs were not recorded consistently for all parties, so these figures cannot rank all four contributions. One recorded checklist use does not establish that the checklist lacks value. We can confirm a document and one trial use; time savings and continuing usefulness remain to be observed. **State established facts as established, and assumptions as matters to validate.** Clear reasons help others continue the inquiry. ## 5\. Separate disagreements to identify the next action Place the four worksheets together before voting. Identify the kind of disagreement. | Disagreement | Possible statement | Next action | | --- | --- | --- | | Facts | “All four adjustments were the supplier's fault.” | Check causes and responsibility records; retain a pending status if evidence is insufficient | | Definitions or scope | “I am assessing customer opportunity; you are counting this batch's revenue.” | Align the object, time window and terms, then reconsider | | Stage priorities | “I value fulfilling this batch; you value the method left behind.” | Explain the evidence and stage-related reasons; reasonable disagreement may remain | | Authority | “Let us decide everyone's payment now.” | Establish who may decide what; this exercise produces assessment recommendations only | Different questions need different responses. Add missing facts, align definitions, discuss objectives or check authority as appropriate. Forceful speaking and the number of supporters present cannot replace this work. ![Disagreement and review mechanism for contribution assessment](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-05.svg) Figure 2: Identify the disagreement before seeking evidence, aligning definitions, discussing priorities or checking authority. Record corrections in this round separately from future rule changes. [Download Figure 2 as SVG](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-05.svg) ## 6\. Reconsider after further evidence After the first discussion, open the supplementary packet. Its three records add information on adjustment causes, approval and costs of the alternative, and checklist use. Return to the original worksheet and ask: 1. What fact is new, and which judgment needs correction? 2. Which contribution has stronger support, and how far does it extend? 3. What remains unanswered, and who should provide what? 4. If the discussion priority stays the same, do the reasons still hold? Explain why you changed a judgment. If you did not change it, explain why the new evidence does not alter the priority. Sometimes evidence merely allows greater precision. One initial trial use becomes three uses within the same batch and limited feedback. The scale of efficiency gains and future value remain open. That is still a useful correction. Do not force unanimous agreement simply to make the discussion feel complete. [After the first two rounds, open the supplementary evidence packet](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-06.md) ## 7\. Leave three things on the table First, **shared confirmed facts**: what happened, where the evidence is and how far it supports a conclusion. Second, **conditional assessments**: which contribution matters, why, at which stage and within what scope. People may disagree while discussing the same facts. Third, **matters for review**: missing records, who will obtain them, when to return, who reviews and what new fact would reopen the discussion. People and dates proposed in the exercise do not confer authority in a real organization. Correct a misread fact in this round. If future assessment rules need changing, record a separate proposal with scope, effective date and confirmation procedure. Do not change rules to obtain a preferred result and pretend they were always there. There is no standard allocation percentage in this exercise. A discussion does not directly change remuneration, contracts, equity or voting rights. What matters is whether we found the facts, saw other people's work, corrected ourselves when evidence changed and can continue handling the remaining disagreements. Lay out the complexity, separate the judgments, make the next action clear and express the relationships in a diagram. That is how the approach of organizing complexity, simplifying, making action easier and drawing the relationships becomes practical here. ## Exercise materials and blank diagram Use the first four materials in order before consulting the fifth, the facilitation guide. Supplementary evidence and reference discussion are separate so you can judge independently first. 1. [Six-dimension foundation sheet and suggested 80-minute plan](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-02.md) 2. [Shared event and four role cards F01–F07](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-01.md) 3. [Contribution assessment and review worksheet](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-04.md) 4. [Second-stage evidence B01–B03](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-06.md) 5. [Reference assessment and facilitation notes: no single answer](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-07.md) 6. [Download the fillable blank exercise diagram as SVG](https://yutengfei.com/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-08.svg) The setting, roles, records and figures are fictional teaching materials created for this exercise. The six dimensions support observation and discussion. The exercise procedure and diagrams were designed for this edition, and their practical usefulness still requires testing. [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Applies to original text unless otherwise stated; excludes third-party materials. Downloading or machine reading does not extend the existing license or separately authorize derivatives, commercial use or model training. [AI usage guide](https://yutengfei.com/en/journal/ai/)