@article {1440,
	title = {Ecosystems, Design, and Glocalization: A multi-level study of Technovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {05/2021},
	pages = {32-43},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {32},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Business ecosystems are an increasingly prominent organizational form in both management research and practice. A growing body of research exists about ecosystem design, but designing local ecosystem instances within a global ecosystem is not yet well understood or defined. This article contributes a multilevel, embedded case study of the global and local ecosystems anchored around the Technovation Girls competition - the world{\textquoteright}s largest technology entrepreneurship challenge for girls. We first define the process platform driving this ecosystem and anchoring the local instances. Second, we identify key architectural properties of a global-local ecosystem. Lastly, we specify a process for defining design rules in an organizational setting. In addition to theoretical relevance for ecosystem scholarship, our results are also of practical relevance to leaders of existing or nascent global ecosystems, who may benefit from techniques described in this paper that involve designing a flexible global ecosystem architecture that accommodates local variation.},
	keywords = {business ecosystems, Canada, design rules, glocalization, Mexico, multisided platform, technology entrepreneurship, Technovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1440},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1440},
	author = {Jasmine A. Shaw and Steven M. Muegge}
}
@article {1432,
	title = {Interview: Discussing Value Proposition Research in the Context of New Companies Committed to Scaling Early and Rapidly},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {04/2021},
	pages = {6-12},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {6},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business ecosystems, implicitly vs. explicitly formulated value propositions, new scaling companies, value proposition, value proposition alignment},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1432},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1432},
	author = {Adrian Payne and Pennie Frow and Stoyan Tanev}
}
@article {1250,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (July 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {07/2019},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {accelerators, adoption, Africa, architecture, business ecosystems, business models, design, digital payments, entrepreneurship, incubators, Innovation management, ISPIM, knowledge management},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1250},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1250},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1247,
	title = {The Strategies of Technology Startups Within and Between Business Ecosystems},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {06/2019},
	pages = {25-41},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology startups build strategies in order to survive within the framework of business ecosystems. However, the knowledge required to make such strategies effective is scarce. This article poses the question: {\textquotedblleft}How do small technology startups strategize within and between business ecosystems?{\textquotedblright} Based on an explorative qualitative study, this article defines and presents a dynamic strategic framework of three strategies employed by technology startups. Some startups choose to act within one defined business ecosystem, most startups use a multi-ecosystem strategy to act between and draw benefits from many business ecosystems, and the rest act as ecosystem creators that challenge the logics of existing ecosystems.},
	keywords = {boundaries, business ecosystems, entrepreneurship, startups, strategy},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1247},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1247},
	author = {Taina Tukiainen and Thommie Burstr{\"o}m and Martin Lindell}
}
@article {917,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (August 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {08/2015},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business ecosystems, developing countries, drawing, enterprise gamification, innovation ecosystems; public{\textendash}private innovation networks; women entrepreneurship, knowledge ecosystems, poverty alleviation, strategy communication},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/917},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/917},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {893,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (May 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {05/2015},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business ecosystems, cybersecurity, Innovation management, Internet of Things, non-practicing entities, open source policies, open source software, patent trolls, social innovation, transformative innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/893},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/893},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {806,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (July 2014)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {07/2014},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {ambidexterity, business ecosystems, business models, entrepreneurship, improvisation, innovation, Internet of Things, knowledge-intensive business services, platforms, public good, publicly funded research, standards, strategy, value co-creation, value design},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/806},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/806},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {672,
	title = {Editorial: Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship (April 2013)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {04/2013},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business ecosystems, entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurship, incubation, innovation, Open innovation, partnership, R\&D, regional innovation system, strategy},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/672},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/672},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Jean-Pierre Segers}
}
@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 {681,
	title = {Editorial: Technology Evolution (May 2013)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {05/2013},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business ecosystems, industrial instrumentation and control, innovation, Innovation management, mashups, R\&D, technological change, technology evolution, web applications},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/681},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/681},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Michael Weiss}
}
@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 {751,
	title = {Risk Management in Crowdsourcing-Based Business Ecosystems},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {12/2013},
	pages = {32-38},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The benefits of crowdsourcing are enabled by open environments where multiple external stakeholders contribute to a firm{\textquoteright}s outcomes. However, crowdsourcing typically has been examined as a general process and not from the specific perspective of a mechanism for driving value creation and capture within a business ecosystem. In this conceptual article, we highlight this research gap by examining crowdsourcing from a business ecosystem perspective and by identifying the inherent business risks in crowdsourcing-based business ecosystems. We apply the concept of ecosystem health to the crowdsourcing context, in terms of how firms create and capture value, and we examine the methods by which these firms can maximize health by mitigating risk in crowdsourcing-based business ecosystems.},
	keywords = {business ecosystem health, business ecosystems, crowdsourcing, risk management},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/751},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/751},
	author = {Suchita Nirosh Kannangara and Peter Uguccioni}
}
@article {564,
	title = {Ecosystem Under Construction: An Action Research Study on Entrepreneurship in a Business Ecosystem},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {06/2012},
	pages = {18-24},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In recent years, we have seen increasing interest in new service concepts that take advantage of the capabilities of business ecosystems instead of single companies. In this article, we describe how a business ecosystem begins to develop around a service business idea proposed by an entrepreneur. We aim to recognize the different domains of players that are or should be involved in the ecosystem while it is under construction. The article concludes with an ecosystem model consisting of six sub-ecosystems having different change drivers and clockspeeds.},
	keywords = {business ecosystems, business model, business networks, health exercise, wellbeing},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/564},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/564},
	author = {Marikka Heikkil{\"a} and Leni Kuivaniemi}
}
@article {597,
	title = {Predicting Ecosystem Alliances Using Landscape Theory},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {08/2012},
	pages = {31-38},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Previous articles in the TIM Review have covered various aspects of the concept of business ecosystems, from the types of ecosystems to keystone strategy, to different member roles and value co-creation. While there is no dearth of suggested best practices that organizations should follow as ecosystem members, it can be difficult to apply these insights into actionable steps for them to take. This is especially true when the ecosystem members already have a prior history of cooperation or competition with each other, as opposed to where a new ecosystem is created.

Landscape theory, a political science approach to predicting coalition formation and strategic alliances, can be a useful complement to ecosystems studies by providing a tool to evaluate the best possible alliance options for an organization, given information about itself and the other companies in the system. As shown in the case study of mobile device manufacturers choosing platform providers in the mobile ecosystem, this tool is highly flexible and customizable, with more data providing a more accurate view of the alliances in the ecosystem. At the same time, with even basic parameters, companies can glean significant information about which coalitions will best serve their interest and overall standing within the ecosystem. 

This article shows the synergies between landscape theory and an ecosystems approach and offers a practical, actionable way in which to analyze individual member benefits.},
	keywords = {alliance formation, business ecosystems, coalition forming games, coalition prediction, landscape theory},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/597},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/597},
	author = {Shruti Satsangi}
}
@article {494,
	title = {Editorial: Recent Research (November 2011)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {1},
	year = {2011},
	month = {11/2011},
	pages = {3-3},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business ecosystems, entrepreneurship, innovation, open source, policy, research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/494},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/494},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
