The methodology used for the ecosystems studied in 2018 (Aguascalientes, Pachuca, Oaxaca, and Guadalajara) has significant differences concerning that used for the ecosystems analyzed since 2019, so direct comparisons between both sets are discouraged.
It reflects the level of collaboration and ecosystemic structure of the network, taking into account the robustness, efficiency, resilience, and proneness to collapse of the system, as well as the average number of collaborations per organization; the higher the index, the better the level of collaboration and a more conducive structure to collaborate. The calculation of this index includes metrics such as Global Efficiency, Transitivity and Eccentricity, which are generated through Social Network Analysis.
This graph shows the intentions with which one organization sought another to collaborate. It reflects in different proportions the intrinsic motivations of collaboration. It tends to reflect organizations' approach to solving needs inherent in the ecosystem itself, as opposed to prioritizing their own goals and interests.
The intensity of the collaboration describes on average both the level of importance that participants assigned to their collaborations with actors, as well as the human and financial resources invested in those collaborations. The level of intensity is shown on a scale from 1 to 5 since it is measured from qualitative data self-perceived by the actor and quantitative data from allocated budget and human resources. 1. Not Intense - Not Relevant 3. Moderately Intense-Relevant 5. Very Intense - Very Relevant
This figure represents the average number of interactions required in the ecosystem to start successful collaborations, reflecting the agility of an ecosystem to collaborate. The more interactions, the more energy and resources needed to begin collaborating. Possible interactions include: meetings, calls, e-mails, etc. discussing the start of a possible collaboration.
This graph shows the percentage of collaborations considered by the participants as successful, unsuccessful, and those in which, despite trying, the collaboration did not materialize.
This graph shows the relationship between the success of collaborations and the presence of a legal collaboration agreement or MOU. It tends to reflect the relationship between implicit effort in the collaboration process and the ultimate result of the collaboration.
It shows the distribution of the actors identified through Social Network Mapping according to the type of role they play in the ecosystem. An ideal balance of roles has not been determined yet, but all six of them must be present in the ecosystem.
Key roles for establishment: It shows what kind of roles have been the most important for the current actors of the ecosystem to be established. These are considered to have been the fundamental roles for the birth of the ecosystem in question, from the point of view of the participating actors themselves. Key roles for growth: It shows what type of roles are being the main drivers of growth for the actors that currently make up the ecosystem. These are then considered to be the fundamental roles for the current development of the ecosystem in question, from the point of view of the participating actors themselves.
This graph observes the dynamics of collaboration between the different actors, showing a trend among the most sought-after roles to collaborate within the same ecosystem for each type of role, either due to their influence and impact or their affinity.