@article {1444,
	title = {Editorial: Distributed Ledger Technologies for Smart Digital Economies (June 2021)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {06/2021},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {3},
	address = {Ottawa},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1444},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1444},
	author = {Steven Muegge and Gregory Sandstrom}
}
@article {1261,
	title = {Conceptualizing a New Domain Using Topic Modeling and Concept Mapping: A Case Study of Managed Security Services for Small Businesses},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {08/2019},
	pages = {55-64},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The objective of this paper is to show how topic modeling and concept mapping can be used to conduct a literature review in a new  domain. The paper makes two contributions. First, it uses topic modeling to map out the literature in the new domain. Topic modeling provides an alternative to manual clustering of articles and allows the identification of non-obvious connections between ideas expressed in a collection of articles. Second, it identifies the underlying concepts in the new domain and their relationships by creating a concept map from the extracted topics . As a case study, the paper reviews the recent literature in the intersection of managed security services and small businesses. In particular, it identifies elements of the managed security services concept as it applies to small businesses. The audience of the paper includes anyone who is exploring a new  domain by reviewing the literature, and in particular, students, researchers, and members of industrial R\&D projects.},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1261},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1261},
	author = {Michael Weiss and Steven Muegge}
}
@article {1258,
	title = {Elon Musk and SpaceX: A Case Study of Entrepreneuring as Emancipation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {08/2019},
	pages = {18-29},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Elon Musk and SpaceX are central to the profound change underway in the space industry, opening up the sector to entrepreneurship and innovation by non-traditional new entrants. We employ the emancipation perspective on entrepreneuring as a theoretical lens to describe, explain, and interpret the entrepreneuring activities of Musk to launch and grow SpaceX. Applying an event study approach combining case methods and process theory methods on publicly-available sources, we develop six examples of seeking autonomy, seven examples of authoring, and four examples of making declarations\&mdash;the three core elements of the emancipation perspective. Our work contributes to the theory and practice of innovation by adding to the corpus of descriptive case studies that examine entrepreneuring as an emancipatory process.},
	keywords = {Elon Musk,},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1258},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1258},
	author = {Steven Muegge and Ewan Reid}
}
@article {902,
	title = {A Design Science Approach to Constructing Critical Infrastructure and Communicating Cybersecurity Risks},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {06/2015},
	pages = {6-16},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Academics are increasingly examining the approaches individuals and organizations use to construct critical infrastructure and communicate cybersecurity risks. Recent studies conclude that owners and operators of critical infrastructures, as well as governments, do not disclose reliable information related to cybersecurity risks and that cybersecurity specialists manipulate cognitive limitations to overdramatize and oversimplify cybersecurity risks to critical infrastructures. This article applies a design science perspective to the challenge of securing critical infrastructure by developing a process anchored around evidence-based design principles. The proposed process is expected to enable learning across critical infrastructures, improve the way risks to critical infrastructure are communicated, and improve the quality of the responses to citizens{\textquoteright} demands for their governments to collect, validate, and disseminate reliable information on cybersecurity risks to critical infrastructures. These results will be of interest to the general public, vulnerable populations, owners and operators of critical infrastructures, and various levels of governments worldwide. },
	keywords = {advanced persistent threats, critical infrastructures, cybersecurity, design propositions, design science, resilience},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/902},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/902},
	author = {Steven Muegge and Dan Craigen}
}
@article {901,
	title = {Editorial: Critical Infrastructures and Cybersecurity (June 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {06/2015},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {botnet, club theory, critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, design principles, design science, healthcare, networked medical devices, project management maturity model},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/901},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/901},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Dan Craigen and Steven Muegge}
}
@article {904,
	title = {Secure by Design: Cybersecurity Extensions to Project Management Maturity Models for Critical Infrastructure Projects},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {06/2015},
	pages = {26-34},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Many systems that comprise our critical infrastructures {\textendash} including electricity, transportation, healthcare, and financial systems {\textendash} are designed and deployed as information technology (IT) projects using project management practices. IT projects provide a one-time opportunity to securely "design in" cybersecurity to the IT components of critical infrastructures. The project management maturity models used by organizations today to assess the quality and rigour of IT project management practices do not explicitly consider cybersecurity. This article makes three contributions to address this gap. First, it develops the argument that cybersecurity can and should be a concern of IT project managers and assessed in the same way as other project management capabilities. Second, it examines three widely used cybersecurity maturity models {\textendash} i) the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity, ii) the United States Department of Energy{\textquoteright}s Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2), and iii) the CERT Resilience Management Model (CERT RMM) from the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute {\textendash} to identify six cybersecurity themes that are salient to IT project management. Third, it proposes a set of cybersecurity extensions to PjM3, a widely-deployed project management maturity model. The extensions take the form of a five-level cybersecurity capability perspective that augments the seven standard perspectives of the PjM3 by explicitly assessing project management capabilities that impact the six themes where IT project management and cybersecurity intersect. This article will be relevant to IT project managers, the top management teams of organizations that design and deploy IT systems for critical infrastructures, and managers at organizations that provide and maintain critical infrastructures.},
	keywords = {C2M2, capability maturity models, CERT RMM, critical infrastructures, cybersecurity, NIST, P3M3, PjM3, project management},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/904},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/904},
	author = {Jay Payette and Esther Anegbe and Erika Caceres and Steven Muegge}
}
@article {654,
	title = {Editorial: Platforms, Communities, and Business Ecosystems (February 2013)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {02/2013},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business ecosystems, communities, platforms, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/654},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/654},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Steven Muegge}
}
@article {703,
	title = {Keystone Business Models for Network Security Processors},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {07/2013},
	pages = {25-33},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Network security processors are critical components of high-performance systems built for cybersecurity. Development of a network security processor requires multi-domain experience in semiconductors and complex software security applications, and multiple iterations of both software and hardware implementations. Limited by the business models in use today, such an arduous task can be undertaken only by large incumbent companies and government organizations. Neither the {\textquotedblleft}fabless semiconductor{\textquotedblright} models nor the silicon intellectual-property licensing ({\textquotedblleft}IP-licensing{\textquotedblright}) models allow small technology companies to successfully compete. This article describes an alternative approach that produces an ongoing stream of novel network security processors for niche markets through continuous innovation by both large and small companies. This approach, referred to here as the "business ecosystem model for network security processors", includes a flexible and reconfigurable technology platform, a {\textquotedblleft}keystone{\textquotedblright} business model for the company that maintains the platform architecture, and an extended ecosystem of companies that both contribute and share in the value created by innovation. New opportunities for business model innovation by participating companies are made possible by the ecosystem model. This ecosystem model builds on: i) the lessons learned from the experience of the first author as a senior integrated circuit architect for providers of public-key cryptography solutions and as the owner of a semiconductor startup, and ii) the latest scholarly research on technology entrepreneurship, business models, platforms, and business ecosystems. This article will be of interest to all technology entrepreneurs, but it will be of particular interest to owners of small companies that provide security solutions and to specialized security professionals seeking to launch their own companies.},
	keywords = {business ecosystems, business model innovation, commercialization, cybersecurity, platforms, semiconductors, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/703},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/703},
	author = {Arthur Low and Steven Muegge}
}
@article {655,
	title = {Platforms, Communities, and Business Ecosystems: Lessons Learned about Technology Entrepreneurship in an Interconnected World},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {02/2013},
	pages = {5-15},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology entrepreneurs are increasingly building businesses that are deliberately anchored in platforms, communities, and business ecosystems. Nonetheless, actionable, evidence-based advice for technology entrepreneurs is scarce. Platforms, communities, and ecosystems are active areas of management research, but until recently, each has been studied in separate research programs, with results published in different venues, and often examined from the perspectives of incumbent managers or policy makers rather than entrepreneurs and new entrants.

This article re-examines these phenomena from the perspective of technology entrepreneurs facing strategic choices about interconnected systems of platforms, communities, and business ecosystems, and decisions about the nature and extent of participation. It brings together insights from a wide range of published sources. For entrepreneurs, it provides an accessible introduction to what can be a complex topic, identifies a set of practical considerations to be accounted for in decision-making, and offers a guide for further reading. For researchers and graduate students seeking practical and high-impact research problems, it provides an entry point to the research literature and identifies gaps in the current body of knowledge, especially regarding the system-level interactions between subsystems. },
	keywords = {architecture of participation, business ecosystem, community, platform, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/655},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/655},
	author = {Steven Muegge}
}
@article {545,
	title = {Business Model Discovery by Technology Entrepreneurs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {04/2012},
	pages = {5-16},
	abstract = {Value creation and value capture are central to technology entrepreneurship. The ways in which a particular firm creates and captures value are the foundation of that firm{\textquoteright}s business model, which is an explanation of how the business delivers value to a set of customers at attractive profits. Despite the deep conceptual link between business models and technology entrepreneurship, little is known about the processes by which technology entrepreneurs produce successful business models. This article makes three contributions to partially address this knowledge gap. First, it argues that business model discovery by technology entrepreneurs can be, and often should be, disciplined by both intention and structure. Second, it provides a tool for disciplined business model discovery that includes an actionable process and a worksheet for describing a business model in a form that is both concise and explicit. Third, it shares preliminary results and lessons learned from six technology entrepreneurs applying a disciplined process to strengthen or reinvent the business models of their own nascent technology businesses.},
	keywords = {business models, commercialization, innovation, technology entrepreneurship, value capture, value creation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/545},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/545},
	author = {Steven Muegge}
}
@article {557,
	title = {An Overview of Four Issues on Technology Entrepreneurship in the TIM Review},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {05/2012},
	pages = {28-34},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The field of technology entrepreneurship is in its infancy when compared to other fields such as economics and management. Articles on technology entrepreneurship have been published in at least 62 journals, of which only 18 contribute to technology innovation management or entrepreneurship. Less than a handful of these 62 journals are considered to be "good" journals and none can claim a leadership position in technology entrepreneurship. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the 20 journal articles published in the February, March, April, and May 2012 issues of the Technology Innovation Management Review (TIM Review).},
	keywords = {creative destruction, global entrepreneurship, journal articles, social entrepreneurship, technology entrepreneurship, theory},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/557},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/557},
	author = {Tony Bailetti and Sonia D. Bot and Tom Duxbury and David Hudson and Chris McPhee and Steven Muegge and Michael Weiss and Jonathan Wells and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {495,
	title = {Business Ecosystems as Institutions of Participation: A Systems Perspective on Community-Developed Platforms},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {1},
	year = {2011},
	month = {11/2011},
	pages = {4-13},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article introduces a systems perspective on community-developed platforms and the institutions that structure participation by individuals and companies. It brings together the past research about technology platforms, company participation in business ecosystems, and individual participation in developer communities, and links these codependent subsystems through resource flows, interconnected institutional arrangements, and shared governance. To achieve this synthesis, it draws on conceptual arguments from a broad range of sources, including Elinor Ostrom{\textquoteright}s research program on the economics of sustainable commons governance, Tim O{\textquoteright}Reilly{\textquoteright}s practitioner essays about the architecture of participation, and prior management research on modularity and design, resource dependence, and systems thinking. The resulting {\textquotedblleft}systems of systems{\textquotedblright} perspective is parsimonious and insightful for entrepreneurs, managers, and community leaders. },
	keywords = {architecture of participation, business ecosystem, community-developed platform, institutional analysis and design (IAD), meritocratic developer community},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/495},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/495},
	author = {Steven Muegge}
}
@article {245,
	title = {Measuring Modularity in Open Source Code Bases},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2009},
	month = {04/2009},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Articles},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = { Modularity of an open source software code base has been associated with growth of the software development community, the incentives for voluntary code contribution, and a reduction in the number of users who take code without contributing back to the community. As a theoretical construct, modularity links OSS to other domains of research, including organization theory, the economics of industry structure, and new product development. However, measuring the modularity of an OSS design has proven difficult, especially for large and complex systems.

In this article, we describe some preliminary results of recent research at Carleton University that examines the evolving modularity of large-scale software systems. We describe a measurement method and a new modularity metric for comparing code bases of different size, introduce an open source toolkit that implements this method and metric, and provide an analysis of the evolution of the Apache Tomcat application server as an illustrative example of the insights gained from this approach. Although these results are preliminary, they open the door to further cross-discipline research that quantitatively links the concerns of business managers, entrepreneurs, policy-makers, and open source software developers. 
},
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/245},
	author = {Steven Muegge and Roberto Milev}
}
@article {209,
	title = {Editorial: Enabling Innovation (December 2008)},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2008},
	month = {12/2008},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Editorial},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This issue of the OSBR provides many examples of using open source principles to enable innovation. These  innovations go beyond code creation and address the diverse issues of: declining computer science enrollment, a lack of affordable publishing tools for online exhibitions, the rising costs of text books, the need for process automation in developing countries, easy-to-use and accessible solutions for the not-for-profit sector, adding open source to a proprietary Fortune 500 company{\textquoteright}s business strategy, and reducing duplicated costs.},
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/209},
	author = {Dru Lavigne and Steven Muegge}
}
@article {174,
	title = {A Flat Network for the Unflat World: Open Educational Resources in Developing Countries},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2008},
	month = {08/2008},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Articles},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Open educational resources (OER) apply the principles of openness - particularly the freedoms of use, modification and redistribution - to digital materials for teaching, learning, and research.  OER can potentially touch all areas of education, from elementary schools to higher education to professional development all over the world, but we are particularly excited about the potential to expand access to education in developing countries. That is the focus of our research and the topic of this article.},
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/174},
	author = {Steven Muegge and Monica Mora and Kamal Hassin and Andrew Pullin}
}
@article {213,
	title = {Social Innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2008},
	month = {12/2008},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Articles},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {SW Global is an African-based application service provider of information technology infrastructure and software. This article describes how SW Global, a for-profit private sector company, creates high-impact value at universities and governments in developing countries through an innovative business model anchored around service subscriptions, open source software, and open content.
 },
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/213},
	author = {Steven Muegge and Chukwuemeka Afigbo}
}
@article {179,
	title = {TIM Series: Theory, Evidence and the Pragmatic Manager},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2008},
	month = {08/2008},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Articles},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {On July 2, 2008, Steven Muegge from Carleton University delivered a presentation entitled "Theory, Evidence and the Pragmatic Manager". This section provides the key messages from the lecture. The scope of this lecture spanned several topics, including management decision making, forecasting and its limitations, the psychology of expertise, and the management of innovation.},
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/179},
	author = {Steven Muegge}
}
