@article {1283,
	title = {Design Rules for {\textquoteleft}Triple Helix{\textquoteright} Organizations},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {11/2019},
	pages = {54-63},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {54},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The image of the triple helix with three forces spiraling around each other has proven to be a powerful and inspiring image of the collaboration between government, business, and academia. The partners in such collaborative arrangements no doubt share an interest in making the collaboration successful. However, they also have specific interests and goals of their own. Too many triple helix arrangements have failed, because they did not consider this basic fact. Achieving their own goals is not necessarily the intention with which partners enter the collaborative effort, but they may well end up following this strategy. We start this paper with a brief description of what can be considered a typical case of \&lsquo;successful failure\&rsquo; in a triple helix organization. We then review the literature regarding reasons for success or failure of triple helix organizations. We find that transparency and credible sanctions for self-interested behaviour are important requirements for successful triple helix arrangements. We then use notions from cybernetics and organizational design to develop basic rules for the design of triple helix arrangements. Basically, these rules and arrangements aim to ensure that self-interest and common purpose will concur.},
	keywords = {design rules, leadership, motivation, sanctions, triple helix},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1283},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1283},
	author = {Ben Dankbaar}
}
@article {1278,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (November 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {11/2019},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {3},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {artificial intelligence, competitive advantage, cybersecurity, deep learning, Deepfake, design rules, digitalization, entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial university, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, fake news, innovation, international entrepreneurship, leadership, Learning Capabilities, marketing, motivation, new venture teams, quadruple helix, sanctions, SMEs, teamwork, triple helix, university business incubation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1278},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1278},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev and Gregory Sandstrom}
}
@article {1280,
	title = {A University Business School as an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Hub},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {11/2019},
	pages = {15-25},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {15},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article assesses the progress of a business school toward achieving the status of an entrepreneurial ecosystem hub with emphasis on the components related to entrepreneurial universities, entrepreneurship education, university business incubators, and university-enterprise-government-civil society collaboration. The objective of a business school serving as an entrepreneurial ecosystem hub, is to stimulate economic development, generate employment, and create innovative technology-based ventures or service businesses. These components are discussed from theoretical and practical viewpoints in order to provide greater understanding of the concepts. An insider action research assessment of the university-affiliated business school was conducted to gauge the progress made in building an embryonic entrepreneurial ecosystem centered upon a business school as a hub. Emphasis is placed on the need to develop strong collaboration among key stakeholders for achieving success in building an effective entrepreneurial ecosystem based on a quadruple helix system, consistent with the lead-in quotation to the article.},
	keywords = {entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial university, entrepreneurship education, quadruple helix, triple helix, university business incubation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1280},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1280},
	author = {Haven Allahar and Ron Sookram}
}
@article {993,
	title = {All Australian Regions Are Not Born Equal: Understanding the Regional Innovation Management Sandpit},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {06/2016},
	pages = {11-23},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we highlight and challenge an overly simplistic assessment of regions and regional innovation systems in Australia. Treating each region and place as equal and prescribing blanket policy is anathema to the reality. Having argued that places are not equivalent, we then move on to highlight that commonalities at a deeper institutional level are possible. We draw on fieldwork and ongoing action research from the Australian regions of Hunter and Central Coast (New South Wales) and Northern Tasmania. Results of the theory and case work have been instrumental in the development of 11 structural attributes of a regional innovation management (RIM) sandpit framework. The framework provides attributes but also important process insights related to regional programs, enterprise development, and project innovations. Although developing from the Australian context, we expect that the RIM Sandpit and its place-based insights can be generalized to other regions around the world.},
	keywords = {action research, constructed advantage, phronesis, pivot, quadruple helix, regional innovation management sandpit, RIS3, smart specialization, strategic management, triple helix},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/993},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/993},
	author = {Anton Kriz and Courtney Molloy and Alexandra Kriz and Sabrina Sonntag}
}
@article {1026,
	title = {The Concept of the Entrepreneurial University Applied to Universities of Technology in Austria: Already Reality or a Vision of the Future?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {10/2016},
	pages = {37-44},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The concept of the "entrepreneurial university" is now recognized as a major driver for self-development and innovation and as an appropriate response to succeeding in highly turbulent and unpredictable markets. This article outlines and evaluates the current implementation of this concept at the universities of technology (TU) in Austria. First, to evaluate the status quo, a review of existing programs and initiatives was undertaken at the three universities comprising the "TU Austria": TU Graz, TU Wien (Vienna), and MU Leoben. Second, a questionnaire was designed on the basis of the HEInnovate framework and sent to representatives of the three universities and resulted in responses from TU Graz and TU Wien. The results underscore that the model of the entrepreneurial university represents the next step of development in higher education. Moreover, it demonstrates that there is still room for improvement at the TU Austria, especially in terms of fostering an entrepreneurial spirit among students.},
	keywords = {entrepreneurial spirit, entrepreneurial university, entrepreneurship, HEInnovate framework, triple helix, TU Austria, TU Graz, TU Wien},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1026},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1026},
	author = {Martin Sperrer and Christiana M{\"u}ller and Julia Soos}
}
@article {932,
	title = {Making Smart Regions Smarter: Smart Specialization and the Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {10/2015},
	pages = {7-15},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {What makes a "smart region" smarter? We argue that it is the active orchestration of the regional ecosystem around concepts such as knowledge co-creation and exploitation, opportunity exploration, and capacity building. Simply adding to the proliferation of software developers in the area, stimulating the activities of business clusters around information technology, and providing digitally enabled services for citizens is not enough to make a region smarter. Smartness is enhanced by a well-orchestrated regional innovation ecosystem with a strong "smart specialization strategy" that leverages the new societal roles played by universities. In this article, we describe the European Commission{\textquoteright}s program for research and innovation strategies for smart specialization (RIS3) and show how the Helsinki Region in Finland is using smart specialization, ecosystem orchestration, and the active role of universities to enhance regional innovation and the "smartness" of the region. These activities are discussed in the context of policy documents and strategy papers from regional, national, and European authorities, which illustrates some differences between papers and practice. This is work in progress, and based on early results, we draw initial conclusions about how putting policy into practice can make smart regions smarter.},
	keywords = {innovation, innovation ecosystems, quadruple helix, role of universities, smart cities, smart regions, smart specialisation, smart specialization, societal innovation, triple helix},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/932},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/932},
	author = {Markku Markkula and Hank Kune}
}
