You are talking about <<"Business ecosystem orchestrator," with a "business ecosystem orchestration" role.>> I have a few comments with
1) It would be nice to understand a difference between the facilitator and orchestrator.
2) The OASIS SOA RAF standard says with regard to business service oriented ecosystem (and no business can work in a non-service oriented ecosystem because service orientation is the principle of existence of modern business - every one serves everyone else) that there cannot be one owner/manager/orchestrator for the ecosystem. So, how relationships between
orchestrators should look like? Are we just moving the problem to orchestrators (who orchestrate orchestrators? )?
3) When I talked about orchestration and choreography patterns technology was not meant at all - they are business operation organisational
patterns. I have to warn that building conclusions based on "external views" or on how people see the things is the same as building an Eiffel Tower on the sand. Everyone can/may see whatever s/he is pleased to see regardless the objective reality, everyone changes
the view depending on the morning mood or yesterday evening beer, etc.
4) Thus, the standardized de facto
(recommended) definition of collaboration is based on the strictly defined and agreed set of rules. No deviation from them is permitted (why would any innovation to be considered as a part of agreed collective work? Participants would be happy already if they reach the common goal together. An innovation is from another dimension.
5) Orchestration assumes that there is someone who organises invocation of works of others in order to
reach his/her goal. The others can continue their usual business and might not even know that they are 'participating' in an orchestrated work.
Saying all above, I would rather challenge a feasibility of this new term "Business ecosystem orchestrator" and related Role. Regular business facilitator and its sub-type - business orchestrator - are quite sufficient to me.