@article {1298,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (January 2020)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {01/2020},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {3},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {AI, artificial intelligence, B2B sales, big data, business-to-business sales, data-based value, digital solutions, ecosystem, ecosystems, Ethics, Gujarat State, Indian IT industry, innovation, IT clusters, Knowledge Innovation clusters, Networks Analysis, regional development, Roboethics, Smart robot, strategy, Systematic literature review, technology, value capture, value creation, value sales},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1298},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1298},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev and Gregory Sandstrom}
}
@article {1216,
	title = {Innovation Ecosystems as Structures for Value Co-Creation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {02/2019},
	pages = {25-35},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite the many recent discussions on {\textquotedblleft}innovation ecosystems{\textquotedblright} as well as on open innovation or other co-innovation models, a more in-depth understanding of the multi-actor processes of value co-creation remains rather scarce. Hence, in this case study, we provide significant novel insight about innovation ecosystems as structures enabling multi-actor value co-creation in real-life innovation ecosystems. Based on our empirical findings, we identified two key principles: 1) in order to encourage the active participation of ecosystem actors in the value co-creation process, efforts must be made to ensure a clear vision and a shared value base on which the ecosystem activities can be built and 2) facilitation is needed to support the ecosystem actors to make new connections and to share their knowledge and resources in concrete ways. Most importantly, the more diversity there is among the ecosystem actors, the greater the support for innovativeness within the value co-creation process. },
	keywords = {ecosystems, innovation, platforms, value co-creation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = { http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1216},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1216},
	author = {Sanna Ketonen-Oksi and Katri Valkokari}
}
@article {1141,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (March 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {03/2018},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {analytics, big data, business models, closed innovation, ecosystems, emerging economies, innovation, internationalization, Internet of Things, Open innovation, technology startups, value creation, value propositions},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1141},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1141},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1090,
	title = {Comparing the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for Technology Startups in Bangalore and Hyderabad, India},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {47-62},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology startups are gaining increasing attention from policy makers the world over because they are seen as a means of encouraging innovations, spurring the development of new products and services, and generating employment. Technology startups tend to thrive when inserted in a conducive entrepreneurial ecosystem. Therefore, ecosystem promotion is being given increasing policy support. However, the emergence and structure of entrepreneurial ecosystems for technology startups have hardly been traced and examined in detail. In India, Bangalore occupies a unique position in the startup world, and Hyderabad is fast emerging as one of the promising startup hubs in the country. Given this background, we set out to explore and examine the structure, evolution, and growth of ecosystems for technology startups in the context of Bangalore and Hyderabad. Both the ecosystems emerged due to the initial foundation laid in the form of government{\textendash}industry{\textendash}academia triple helix and their interactions leading to the emergence of a modern industrial cluster followed by an information technology and biotechnology cluster, which then led to R\&D cluster serving both the cities. These three clusters together, gradually and steadily, facilitated an entrepreneurial ecosystem for technology startups to emerge. The ecosystem operates within the triple helix model and has a nucleus with two outer layers: i) an inner layer of primary (indispensable) factors and ii) an outer layer of supplementary (secondary) factors. Through the analysis of the experiences of Bangalore and Hyderabad and their ecosystem evolution, its structure, and components, we derive key lessons for others within and beyond India. },
	keywords = {Bangalore, ecosystems, entrepreneurship, Hyderabad, India, startups, technology},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1090},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1090},
	author = {M H Bala Subrahmanya}
}
@article {1105,
	title = {Convergent Innovation in Emerging Healthcare Technology Ecosystems: Addressing Complexity and Integration},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {09/2017},
	pages = {44-54},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Precision Medicine and Digital Health are emerging areas in healthcare, and they are underpinned by convergent or cross-industry innovation. However, convergence results in greater uncertainty and complexity in terms of technologies, value networks, and organization. There has been limited empirical research on emerging and convergent ecosystems, especially in addressing the issue of integration. This research identifies how organizations innovate in emerging and convergent ecosystems, specifically, how they address the challenge of integration. We base our research on empirical analyses using a series of longitudinal case studies employing a combination of case interviews, field observations, and documents. Our findings identify a need to embrace the complexity by adopting a variety of approaches that balance {\textquotedblleft}credibility-seeking{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}advantage-seeking{\textquotedblright} behaviours, to navigate, negotiate, and nurture both the innovation and ecosystem, in addition to a combination of {\textquotedblleft}analysis{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}synthesis{\textquotedblright} actions to manage aspects of integration. We contribute to the convergent innovation agenda and provide practical approaches for innovators in this domain. },
	keywords = {complexity, convergent innovation, ecosystems, healthcare, integration},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1105},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1105},
	author = {Mark A. Phillips and Tom{\'a}s S. Harrington and Jagjit Singh Srai}
}
@article {1086,
	title = {Editorial: 10th Anniversary Issue (July 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {ecosystems, entrepreneurship, inclusive innovation, India, knowledge commercialization, living labs, OSBR, TIM Review, topic modelling, universities, urban},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1086},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1086},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1101,
	title = {Editorial: Platforms and Ecosystems (September 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {09/2017},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {digital transformation, ecosystems, innovation, orchestrators, platform economy, platforms, stakeholders, startups, strategy, technology, value creation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1101},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1101},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Ozgur Dedehayir and Marko Sepp{\"a}nen}
}
@article {1061,
	title = {Orchestrating Innovation Ecosystems: A Qualitative Analysis of Ecosystem Positioning Strategies},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {03/2017},
	pages = {12-24},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article explores how firms can orchestrate innovation ecosystems to enhance collaboration for innovation among different actors. Most previous research on ecosystems has focused on firm-level strategies to operate in an ecosystem rather than the composition or orchestration of an ecosystem as a whole. However, finding the balance between the self-interests of involved actors is critical in order to create collaborative settings that induce different parties to jointly develop and put their best efforts into a joint endeavour. Thus, we undertook a qualitative study with 35 case companies from the metal and engineering industries, each of whom was interested in developing their position in ecosystems and improving their relational business practices. The findings suggest that there is an essential ecosystem competence that is needed by all actors in an ecosystem, regardless of their position, and that is the ability to manage dynamic strategic interactions related to innovation. This competence enables them to ensure the future vitality of the ecosystem and their own business. These results highlight the need for managers to profile their own company{\textquoteright}s role in an ecosystem in relation to the type of ecosystems, while simultaneously evaluating the ecosystem{\textquoteright}s ability and potential to survive.},
	keywords = {actors, collaboration, ecosystems, innovation, orchestration, positioning, roles, strategy},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1061},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1061},
	author = {Katri Valkokari and Marko Sepp{\"a}nen and Maria M{\"a}ntyl{\"a} and Simo Jylh{\"a}-Ollila}
}
@article {994,
	title = {Developing a Startup and Innovation Ecosystem in Regional Australia},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {06/2016},
	pages = {24-32},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology is enabling change at an ever increasing pace, not only in urban contexts, but also in regional centres, where the Internet in particular is enabling entrepreneurs to compete in the global marketplace despite the size and remoteness of their home cities or towns. In regional Australia, the challenges of high unemployment, fading traditional industries, a lack of economic diversity, and a "brain drain" of talent to urban centres highlight the need for novel economic development strategies. Innovation and entrepreneurship are highlighted as potential solutions, but both require knowledge and support to be successful. In this article, the author shares lessons learned as an entrepreneur and through the ongoing development of a self-sustaining startup and innovation ecosystem in the remote region of Cairns, Australia. The model described in this article is now being applied to other regions in Australia, where trained champions are driving the development of startup and innovation ecosystems adapted to regional needs.},
	keywords = {Australia, Cairns, ecosystems, entrepreneurship, incubation, innovation, mentorship, regional, startups, theSPACE},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/994},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/994},
	author = {Troy Haines}
}
@article {1022,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (October 2016)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {10/2016},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {boundary objects, ecosystems, entrepreneurial university, entrepreneurship, growth ambitions, innovation, knowledge integration, startups, strategy, tacit knowledge, teaching},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1022},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1022},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1037,
	title = {Editorial: Smart Cities and Regions (December 2016)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {12/2016},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {collaborative innovation, ecosystems, living labs, online platforms, Open innovation, regional innovation, smart cities, smart regions},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1037},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1037},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Taina Tukiainen and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {1004,
	title = {Q\&A. How Can a University Drive an Open Innovation Ecosystem?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {07/2016},
	pages = {48-51},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {ecosystems, Open innovation, public{\textendash}private partnerships, technology transfer, university{\textendash}industry cooperation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1004},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1004},
	author = {Gonzalo Le{\'o}n and Roberto Mart{\'\i}nez}
}
@article {931,
	title = {Editorial: Smart Cities and Regions (October 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {10/2015},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {collaboration, ecosystems, innovation ecosystem, living laboratories, living labs, Open innovation, regional innovation, smart cities, smart regions, smart specialisation, smart specialization, sustainability, urban capabilities},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/931},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/931},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Taina Tukiainen and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {755,
	title = {Editorial: Open Source Business (January 2014)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {01/2014},
	pages = {3},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business models, collaboration, ecosystems, licensing, open data, open source business, open source software, patterns},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/755},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/755},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {803,
	title = {TIM Lecture Series {\textendash} Insights on Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {06/2014},
	pages = {40-41},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {customer focus, ecosystems, innovation, service provision, telecommunications},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/803},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/803},
	author = {Ibrahim Gedeon}
}
@article {683,
	title = {Niche Formation in the Mashup Ecosystem},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {05/2013},
	pages = {13-17},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Mashups enable end-users to "mix and match" data and services available on the web to create applications. Their creation is supported by a complex ecosystem of i) data providers who offer open APIs to users, ii) users who combine APIs into mashups, and iii) platforms, such as the ProgrammableWeb or Mashape, that facilitate the construction and publication of mashups. In this article, we argue that the evolution of the mashup ecosystem can be explained in terms of ecosystem niches anchored around hub or keystone APIs. The members of a niche are focused on an area of specialization (e.g., mapping applications) and contribute their knowledge to the value proposition of the ecosystem as a whole. To demonstrate the formation of niches in the mashup ecosystem, we model groups of related mashups as species, and we reconstruct the evolution of mashup species through phylogenetic analysis.  },
	keywords = {ecosystems, evolution, growth, keystones, mashups, niche formation, recombinant innovation, speciation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/683},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/683},
	author = {Michael Weiss and Solange Sari and Nadia Noori}
}
