@article {1434,
	title = {Framing Multi-Stakeholder Value Propositions: A wicked problem lens},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {04/2021},
	pages = {26-37},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {26},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Balancing various stakeholder (often contradictory) expectations creates tensions when developing value propositions for a new firm. Customers, funders, owners, and society-at-large often expect different value outcomes from a firm. They therefore have different motivations for being involved in the firm. These differences in value expectations are more strongly expressed in technology-based ventures, which often rely heavily on access to heterogeneous external resources such as capital, specialised knowledge, distribution, and service. In this paper, we use a wicked problem lens to explore specific challenges for companies to mediate seemingly contradictory propositions. We use two dimensions of wicked problems involving complexity and complicatedness, and conduct a secondary analysis of seven technology venture case studies from Australia and New Zealand. We then categorise the configuration types of these firms{\textquoteright} stakeholder value propositions in the context of their scale-up process. We contribute to the value proposition and business model development research streams by suggesting that the challenge of mediating value propositions that conflict can manifest itself in four types of configurations: easy, complicated, complex and wicked. Complicated and complex propositions are thorny, but with structures and processes in place, they can be adequately addressed. On the other hand, wicked propositions consist of many unknowns and require firms to collaborate with stakeholders to derive outcomes that align company scaling objective with stakeholder value propositions.},
	keywords = {complexity, complicatedness, scaling-up, stakeholders, value proposition, wicked problem},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1434},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1434},
	author = {Yat Ming Ooi and Kenneth Husted}
}
@article {1381,
	title = {Editorial: ISPIM Bangkok (August 2020)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {08/2020},
	pages = {3},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {3},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {Basic research, biotech startups., co-working, Conceptual research, disruption, incubators, innovation, Integrative marketing, investors, knowledge-sharing, Open marketing, organizational capabilities, Pharmaceutical companies, roles, service ecosystems, service entities, service-dominant logic, stakeholders, strategic marketing, strategy-innovation link, structured literature review, triadic relationships, University and Public research institute, value co-creation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1380},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1380},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev and Gregory Sandstrom}
}
@article {1379,
	title = {A Triadic Actor View of Value Co-creation in Business Incubation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {08/2020},
	pages = {27-37},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {27},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this paper we view an incubator as a service entity that may take different forms. We contribute to the literature by exploring the utility of the service-dominant logic (SDL) paradigm (Vargo \&amp; Lusch, 2016) to better understand incubation operations. Value co-creation is a central axiom of SDL, as is engagement with a supporting service ecosystem. Whilst some studies have considered dyadic incubator-client value creation arrangements, we extend this to include interaction with other service ecosystem stakeholders that we characterise as investors. This way a triadic interaction model is presented. We consider four different cases of a service entity supporting start-up development from this actor-oriented perspective. Adopting a client company perspective, we draw a parallel between various kinds of incubation services and department stores, where clients may access what they need when they need it from a variety of offerings, and obtain the assistance they require.},
	keywords = {co-working, incubators, investors, knowledge-sharing, service ecosystems, service entities, service-dominant logic, stakeholders, triadic relationships., value co-creation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1378},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1378},
	author = {Ronald Beckett and John Dalrymple}
}
@article {1220,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs (March 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {03/2019},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {accelerators, business models, frameworks, innovation, living labs, Open innovation, stakeholders, sustainability, tools, UN Sustainable Development Goals, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1220},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1220},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Abdolrasoul Habibipour and Mari Runardotter and Diana Chron{\'e}er}
}
@article {1154,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (May 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {05/2018},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business models, co-creation, drop out, entrepreneurship, facilitation, innovation, internationalization, lean global startups, living labs, services, servitization, stakeholders, users, value propositions, value-in-use},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1154},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1154},
	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 {1032,
	title = {The Smart City Ecosystem as an Innovation Model: Lessons from Montreal},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {11/2016},
	pages = {26-31},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Innovations are not confined to new technologies designed to improve the manufacturing processes of a product or the provision of a service. In a context of postmodernity, the new innovation paradigm calls on organizations to choose the best innovation strategies for their broader purposes. Today, such strategies usually involve adopting organizational structures that enable better collaboration with the stakeholders of an ecosystem. This article focuses on the smart city of Montreal {\textendash} selected as the 2016 Intelligent Community of the Year by the Intelligent Community Forum {\textendash} as a model of innovation. The aim is to understand the distinction between "the smart city" and "the smart destination", despite the omnipresence of tourism projects in smart city development plans. Among the key lessons are the importance of engaging tourism stakeholders and the role of a dedicated organization to develop and implement the city{\textquoteright}s unique vision.},
	keywords = {ecosystem, innovation, Montreal, smart cities, smart destination, stakeholders},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1032},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1032},
	author = {Mohamed Reda Khomsi}
}
@article {873,
	title = {Personal Health Systems Technologies: Critical Issues in Service Innovation and Diffusion},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {02/2015},
	pages = {46-57},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Personal health system (PHS) technologies can enhance public and private health service delivery and provide new business opportunities in Europe and around the world. Although much PHS technology has already been developed and could potentially provide virtually everyone with access to personalized healthcare, research driven primarily by a technology push may fail, because it fails to situate PHS within the wider health and social care service systems. In this article, we explore the scattered PHS research and innovation landscape, as well its relevant markets, using several types of analyses: bibliometrics, patent analysis, social network analysis, stakeholder workshops, and interviews. Our analyses aim to identify critical issues in the development and implementation of service systems around PHS technologies. },
	keywords = {ehealth, foresight studies, health and social care, healthcare, innovation ecosystem, mhealth, personal health systems, service innovation, service systems, stakeholders, system design, technology adoption},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/873},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/873},
	author = {Doris Schartinger and Ian Miles and Ozcan Saritas and Effie Amanatidou and Susanne Giesecke and Barbara Heller-Schuh and Laura Pombo-Juarez and G{\"u}nter Schreier}
}
@article {816,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in India (August 2014)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {08/2014},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {education, entrepreneurship, government support, India, innovation, knowledge systems, policy, service innovation, stakeholders, startups, uncertainty, university},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/816},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/816},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Kalyan Kumar Guin}
}
@article {821,
	title = {Reviewing the Knowledge Systems of Innovation and the Associated Roles of Major Stakeholders in the Indian Context},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {08/2014},
	pages = {36-45},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we review various models of knowledge systems and discusses the relationships between various component stakeholders of innovation, namely higher-education institutions, industry, and government. The article uses India as a case study to examine new challenges and opportunities facing its innovation ecosystem. Within this context, we review existing models of knowledge systems through an innovative representation exemplifying the knowledge landscape and the model positioning. We argue for a reinforcing role of major stakeholders in the proliferation of innovation and entrepreneurship, and the need to promote healthy interactions between them.},
	keywords = {entrepreneurship, government, higher-education institutions, industry, innovation ecosystem, innovation system, knowledge systems, models, stakeholders, university},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/821},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/821},
	author = {Punit Saurabh and Prabha Bhola and Kalyan Kumar Guin}
}
