@article {1195,
	title = {Collaboration Strategies in Innovation Ecosystems: An Empirical Study of the German Microelectronics and Photonics Industries},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {11/2018},
	pages = {4-12},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Effective collaboration between companies and research organizations is key to successful innovation systems. Against the background of digitalization, a shift from traditional innovation systems towards innovation ecosystems can be observed. In this article, we investigate how companies operating in innovation ecosystems address the challenge of collaboration in dynamic innovation ecosystems. We focus on microelectronics and photonics in Germany as examples of knowledge- and research-intensive industries and analyze the strategies of companies to collaborate with research organizations. We explore whether and to what extent companies develop different and new strategies for collaborating with research institutions within innovation ecosystems, on the basis of which we identify two ideal types of strategies. Whereas ideal type A is aiming towards obtaining specific knowledge in order to further develop a particular technology or product (i.e., towards incremental innovation), ideal type B seeks to harness the new and full potential of innovation ecosystems (i.e., aiming at rather radical innovation). Finally, our findings contribute to a better understanding of innovation ecosystems and give managerial implications for collaborating in such systems. },
	keywords = {business ecosystem, collaboration, development and innovation, innovation ecosystem, innovation ecosystem strategies, knowledge ecosystem, microelectronics, photonics, research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1195},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1195},
	author = {Fabian Schroth and Johann Jakob H{\"a}u{\ss}ermann}
}
@article {1171,
	title = {Q\&A. Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research: Where Are We Now and How Do We Move Forward?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {07/2018},
	pages = {52-57},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {approaches, business ecosystem, entrepreneurial ecosystem, innovation ecosystem, methods, research, theoretical foundations},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1171},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1171},
	author = {Paavo Ritala and Robin Gustafsson}
}
@article {1039,
	title = {The Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {12/2016},
	pages = {26-37},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The development of business ecosystems in smart cities is currently hampered by the absence of established approaches for facilitating long-term value and sustainability. In our view, the underlying reason is the lack of collective action involving various organizations in the design process. Collective action for the good of the whole ecosystem does not take place in existing participatory practices because of the dominating role of a single customer or designer organization (in urban development projects typically the owner-developer or lead architect), who uses their bargaining and decision-making power over others. This leads to sub-optimal behaviour where the system is optimized for the goals of one strong organization instead of collectively developed system-level goals of the business ecosystem as a whole. The Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest approach addresses this problem by inviting various expert organizations to design the system and assigning each organization design rights for the ecosystem and its system-level goal. The Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest approach enhances collective action among the organizations by making individuals from various organizations consider the interests, goals, objectives, and value-adding elements of other organizations {\textendash} not just those of their own organizations. With the Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest approach, the business ecosystem comes first, and single organizations{\textquoteright} goals or specific design features come second. This article discusses the outcomes of two workshops where the Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest approach was used for the purpose of developing business ecosystems in connection with smart city development projects within the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. We outline the steps involved in the Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest approach and how they were applied in these two smart city projects, and we describe how it is being refined for further use in other locations and contexts.},
	keywords = {business ecosystem, business network, campus development, co-creation, co-design, collective action, Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest Approach, participatory planning, smart cities, sustainability},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1039},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1039},
	author = {Karlos Artto and Riikka Kyr{\"o} and Tuomas Ahola and Antti Peltokorpi and Kristiina Sandqvist}
}
@article {919,
	title = {Business, Innovation, and Knowledge Ecosystems: How They Differ and How to Survive and Thrive within Them},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {08/2015},
	pages = {17-24},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In management studies, the ecosystem metaphor is often utilized without clear definition and, thereby, several partially overlapping concepts such as industrial, business, service, innovation, and knowledge ecosystems have been introduced. The purpose of this conceptual article is to go beyond the confusion to define what is meant by different concepts regarding an ecosystem and especially describe the relationships between the three different ecosystem types: business, innovation, and knowledge ecosystems. The article contributes to the literature by describing how the ecosystem types differ in terms of their outcomes, interactions, logic of action, and actor roles. The results show that the three ecosystem types are interconnected from the viewpoint of the ecosystem actor. For practitioners, the article sheds more light on how the rules of the game (i.e., the logic of action) differ in the different types of ecosystems and demonstrates that different models are needed in order to operate in different ecosystems.},
	keywords = {business ecosystem, communities, conceptual paper, ecosystem, innovation ecosystem, knowledge ecosystem, logic of action, man-made ecosystem, platforms},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/919},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/919},
	author = {Katri Valkokari}
}
@article {896,
	title = {Who Inhabits a Business Ecosystem? The Technospecies as a Unifying Concept},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {05/2015},
	pages = {31-44},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Currently, many terms are used to describe business ecosystems and their inhabitants. These terms have meanings that can cause definitional confusion and an ambiguous level of analysis as to what constitutes a business ecosystem. To understand business ecosystem relationships, an unambiguous understanding of the ecosystem components is required. The importance of standardized terminology and clear definitions of these components has been recognized in the literature. From a managerial perspective, identifying the relationships a firm is situated in is valuable and useful information that can be practically applied. We propose a business ecosystem model anchored around interdependent technospecies similar to the biological model that many of the existing concepts are drawn from. Technospecies are unique entities based on their organizational routines, capabilities, and use of technology. This article will present an alternative formulation of the business ecosystem model with the aim of synthesizing the diverse terminology presently in use into a concise, common language. },
	keywords = {business ecosystem, business environment, complex adaptive systems, technospecies},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/896},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/896},
	author = {Michael L. Weber and Michael J. Hine}
}
@article {758,
	title = {Overcoming Barriers to Collaboration in an Open Source Ecosystem},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {01/2014},
	pages = {18-27},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Leveraging open source practices provides value to businesses when entrepreneurs and managers understand how to collaborate effectively in an open source ecosystem. However, the complex mix of different actors and varying barriers to effective collaboration in the ecosystem pose a substantial challenge. How can a business create and capture value if it depends on effective collaboration among these different groups? In this article, we review the published research on open source collaboration and reveal insights that will be beneficial to entrepreneurs and managers. We organize the published research into four streams based upon the following actor groups: i) governance actors, ii) competitors, iii) complementors, and iv) the core community. Then, through induction and synthesis, we identify barriers to collaboration, first by ecosystem and then by actor group. Finally, we offer six recommendations for identifying and overcoming barriers to collaboration in an open source ecosystem.},
	keywords = {business ecosystem, collaboration, collaboration barriers, communities, competitors, complementors, core community, governance, open source},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/758},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/758},
	author = {Derek Smith and Asrar Alshaikh and Rawan Bojan and Anish Kak and Mohammad Mehdi Gharaei Manesh}
}
@article {711,
	title = {Developing an Innovation Engine to Make Canada a Global Leader in Cybersecurity},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {08/2013},
	pages = {5-14},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {An engine designed to convert innovation into a country{\textquoteright}s global leadership position in a specific product market is examined in this article, using Canada and cybersecurity as an example. Five entities are core to the innovation engine: an ecosystem, a project community, an external community, a platform, and a corporation. The ecosystem is the focus of innovation in firm-specific factors that determine outcomes in global competition; the project community is the focus of innovation in research and development; and the external community is the focus of innovation in resources produced and used by economic actors that operate outside of the focal product market. Strategic intent, governance, resource flows, and organizational agreements bind the five entities together. Operating the innovation engine in Canada is expected to improve the level and quality of prosperity, security, and capacity of Canadians, increase the number of Canadian-based companies that successfully compete globally in cybersecurity product markets, and better protect Canada{\textquoteright}s critical infrastructure. Researchers interested in learning how to create, implement, improve, and grow innovation engines will find this article interesting. The article will also be of interest to senior management teams in industry and government, chief information and technology officers, social and policy analysts, academics, and individual citizens who wish to learn how to secure cyberspace. },
	keywords = {business ecosystem, cybersecurity, innovation engine, innovation in commercialization, innovation in research and development},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/711},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/711},
	author = {Tony Bailetti and Dan Craigen and David Hudson and Renaud Levesque and Stuart McKeen and D{\textquoteright}Arcy Walsh}
}
@article {685,
	title = {Navigating Risk When Entering and Participating in a Business Ecosystem},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {05/2013},
	pages = {25-33},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Entrepreneurs typically have limited resources during the start-up phase of a business. Business ecosystems are a strategy for entrepreneurs to access and exchange many different aspects of value, resources, and benefits. However, there may be business risks for entering a particular type of ecosystem, and further risks may be encountered after entering and participating in a business ecosystem. These risks are significant and can inhibit a startup{\textquoteright}s growth. In this article, the literature on business ecosystems is reviewed as it relates to risk to discover insights of relevance to entrepreneurs, top management teams, and business-ecosystem operators. First, the published research is organized into two streams: i) risks relating to categories of business ecosystems, and ii) risks relating to participating in business ecosystems. Then, the problem is abstracted to develop a potential strategy for managing these risks, which features a pre-entry inspection followed by real-time resource management. Finally, five recommendations are offered for entrepreneurs seeking to enter and participate in business ecosystems.},
	keywords = {business ecosystem, due diligence, entrepreneurs, literature review, mitigation, risk, risk identification, startups, threat management},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/685},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/685},
	author = {Derek Smith}
}
@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 {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}
}
