@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 {1208,
	title = {Strategy-as-Process in a Technology Venture: A Case Study of Pivots, Pauses, Partners, and Progress},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {01/2019},
	pages = {9-19},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology commercialization is an often nonlinear process that tends to pass through various {\textquotedblleft}stages{\textquotedblright} or {\textquotedblleft}phases{\textquotedblright} as a venture attempts to shepherd a technology from the laboratory to marketplace. Between these phases are {\textquotedblleft}junctures{\textquotedblright} or {\textquotedblleft}transitions{\textquotedblright} that present particular challenges for entrepreneurs as they often comprise fundamental changes to the venture instead of simply scaled versions of previous challenges. In this study, we use a participant-observer methodology to deeply explore how a technology venture in the renewable energy sector negotiated these transitions. Our findings highlight the development of a {\textquotedblleft}repertoire{\textquotedblright} of tools entrepreneurs can use to help successfully negotiate these transitions. },
	keywords = {innovation systems, managing critical junctures and transitions, process research, technology commercialization, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = { http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1208},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1208},
	author = {Andrew G. Earle and Michael J. Merenda and J. Matthew Davis}
}
@article {1076,
	title = {Digital Technology Entrepreneurship: A Definition and Research Agenda},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {05/2017},
	pages = {44-51},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology entrepreneurship is an established concept in academia. However, recent developments in the context of digital entrepreneurship call for revision and advancement. The multiple possible combinations of technology and entrepreneurship have resulted in a diversity of phenomena with significantly different characteristics and socio-economic impact. This article is focused on the identification and description of technology entrepreneurship in times of digitization. Based on current examples, we identify and describe characterizations of technology entrepreneurship, digital technology entrepreneurship, and digital entrepreneurship. With this new delineation of terms, we would like to foster discussion between researchers, entrepreneurs, and policy makers on the impact of digitization on entrepreneurship, and set a future research agenda.},
	keywords = {definitions, digital entrepreneurship, digital technology entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship, technology entrepreneurship, technology Innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1076},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1076},
	author = {Ferran Giones and Alexander Brem}
}
@article {1010,
	title = {Audience Commodification: A Source of Innovation in Business Models},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {08/2016},
	pages = {40-47},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article reports on a research project aimed at developing a business model by changing the value-creation mechanism. The essence of this change is to persuade customers to perform actions in favour of the service provider. Such actions include responding to advertising clips to unlock value. The business model was generated from the concept of audience commodification and is based on the idea of looking at users as a source of a tradeable asset in business-to-business markets. Here, attention and actions are the assets that users pay to access the proposed value. The research includes two phases of surveys and experimentation. In the first phase, the tendency and acceptance level of users towards watching advertisements to unlock value are measured. In the next phase, a platform prototype is developed to test and understand user actions towards receiving value. The sample includes 52 users of different nationalities who were seeking relationships on an online dating platform. Results revealed that users accept advertising and will perform requested actions if they can perceive the delivered value. Practical implications of this research include insights to help move away from the current {\textquotedblleft}view-based{\textquotedblright} advertising model toward new models of partnership with users in the value-creation process. This research may also stimulate further research into developing sustainable business models based on advertising revenue. },
	keywords = {audience commodification, business model, innovation, technology entrepreneurship, value marketing},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1010},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1010},
	author = {Datis Khajeheian}
}
@article {880,
	title = {Do Actions Matter More than Resources? A Signalling Theory Perspective on the Technology Entrepreneurship Process},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {03/2015},
	pages = {39-45},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article studies how technology-based entrepreneurs manage to transform their ideas into viable businesses, regardless of their resource limitations and the complexity and dynamics of technology-intense contexts. To describe how entrepreneurs unlock the value proposition that makes a technology useful, we adopt a set of lenses that allow us to view what happens on both sides of the market. In this context, we need to look beyond the resources to explain the weight that entrepreneur{\textquoteright}s actions carry on the technology entrepreneurship process. In this article, we use a multiple case study on three new technology-based firms to explore how their actions can be interpreted as valuable market signals. The results suggest that entrepreneurs strategically use market, technology, and social capital signalling to mitigate uncertainty and advance in the technology entrepreneurship process. This research holds implications for academic research on the integration of resource and demand-side views, as well as for entrepreneurs and practitioners interested in understanding the impact of visible actions in the early stages of a new technology-based venture.},
	keywords = {market signals, opportunity exploitation, opportunity exploration, signalling theory, social capital signals, technology entrepreneurship, technology signals},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/880},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/880},
	author = {Ferran Giones and Francesc Miralles}
}
@article {876,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation Tools and Techniques (March 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {03/2015},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {innovation, lean, living labs, management, processes, project management, risk, signalling, smart cities, systems engineering, techniques, technology entrepreneurship, tools},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/876},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/876},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Brendan Galbraith and Nadia Noori}
}
@article {856,
	title = {Turning Technology into Business Using University Patents},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {12/2014},
	pages = {37-43},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {We present an education paradigm that stimulates innovation and entrepreneurship through a master{\textquoteright}s-level university course: "Turning Technology into Business". The course was specifically designed to connect technological research with education using patented technologies developed at the research faculties of a technical university in the Netherlands. We outline the structure and the main content of the course and explain the selection process of both the patents used in the course and the students admitted to the course. This program was initiated at Delft University of Technology in 2003 and has resulted in 10 startups that have commercialized new technologies and at least two additional dozen startups that are indirect spinoffs. To illustrate the potential of this approach, we describe the case of Holland Container Innovations, a company founded by students who developed a foldable sea container during the course.},
	keywords = {commercialization, entrepreneurship education, multi-disciplinary team work, patents, student entrepreneurs, technology entrepreneurship, university research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/856},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/856},
	author = {Dap Hartmann}
}
@article {658,
	title = {An Ecosystem-Based Job-Creation Engine Fuelled by Technology Entrepreneurs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {02/2013},
	pages = {31-40},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Job creation is at the centre of the rationale provided by governments and publicly funded organizations for investing in services purported to support entrepreneurs to launch and grow technology startups. However, little is known about how to design and build the engines that convert these publicly funded services into jobs in a region. In this article, we argue that the architecture of a job-creation engine fuelled by technology entrepreneurs is important and that it should be made visible to the stakeholders of a regional venture system. The manner in which the components of a job-creation engine are organized and integrated determines the effectiveness and efficiency of the conversion of public funds into jobs. Making visible the architecture of a job-creation engine enables individuals and organizations to: i) better understand the link between the investment made to service technology entrepreneurs and systematic job creation; ii) utilize the regional venture system more effectively; and iii) set the performance benchmark for capability improvement and rapid adjustment to environmental changes. The experience gained from operating Lead To Win since 2009 is used to describe the architecture of a job-creation engine fuelled by technology entrepreneurs that operate in Canada{\textquoteright}s Capital Region. Lead To Win is an ecosystem designed to help a technology venture generate sufficient revenue to create six or more knowledge jobs in the region within three years of inception. },
	keywords = {accelerator, economic development, entrepreneur, incubator, job creation, Lead To Win, startups, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/658},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/658},
	author = {Tony Bailetti and Sonia D. Bot}
}
@article {689,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (June 2013)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {06/2013},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {case study, intellectual property, IT function, open source business, process ambidexterity, risk management, software licenses, startups, technology entrepreneurship, uncertainty},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/689},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/689},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@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 {692,
	title = {From Ideas to Opportunities: Exploring the Construction of Technology-Based Entrepreneurial Opportunities},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {06/2013},
	pages = {13-20},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The transformation of business ideas into market opportunities is at the core of entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, the complexity of such a transformative process is seen to change depending on the variables influencing the opportunity-entrepreneur nexus. Although technology-entrepreneurship is regarded as a force of change and dynamism in socio-economic growth, it also depends upon an intricate process of opportunity development. The interest in understanding better how technology-based entrepreneurs simultaneously cope with technological uncertainty while trying to gain stakeholder support and access to resources, highlights a relevant research gap. The research described in this article uses the constructivist view to deepen our understanding of the technology-based entrepreneur{\textquoteright}s conceptualization of the opportunity as a process of social construction. Our results show how initial consensus-building efforts and iteration with knowledgeable peers are an essential part of the emergence of the opportunity, changing both entrepreneur{\textquoteright}s and stakeholders{\textquoteright} perceptions of the early business idea. Consequently, our results provide evidence in support of policy programs and measures that favour social-construction support mechanisms to foster technology-based entrepreneurship.},
	keywords = {constructivist view, entrepreneurship policy, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/692},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/692},
	author = {Ferran Giones and Zhao Zhou and Francesc Miralles and Bernhard Katzy}
}
@article {657,
	title = {How Can Entrepreneurs Motivate Crowdsourcing Participants?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {02/2013},
	pages = {23-30},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Crowdsourcing is a way to access a global crowd of talented people and to channel their talent and creative effort towards some useful endeavour. Technology entrepreneurs who may have limited resources, especially during the start-up phase of the business, will be attracted to crowdsourcing as a means to access funding, knowledge, subject matter experts, and resources on a global scale. In this article, we review the published research on crowdsourcing as it relates to motivation, and distil the insights from that research that will be useful to technology entrepreneurs. First, we organize the published research into three streams according to crowd type: i) task-based public crowd, ii) information-exchange public crowd, and iii) employee-based crowd. Next, we identify the motivational drivers common to all streams as well as the motivational drivers that are unique to each stream. Finally, we offer five recommendations for technology entrepreneurs seeking to apply crowdsourcing.},
	keywords = {crowdsourcing, entrepreneur, startup, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/657},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/657},
	author = {Derek Smith and Mohammad Mehdi Gharaei Manesh and Asrar Alshaikh}
}
@article {677,
	title = {Incubation Programs from Public Research Organizations as Catalysts for Open Business Ecosystems},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {04/2013},
	pages = {29-34},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In many economies, new knowledge and technology creation and transfer towards local entities and new startups have been recognized as catalysts for industry renewal and tools for safeguarding (or even enhancing) a region{\textquoteright}s employment and prosperity. This article presents a case study of iMinds, a network organization in Flanders, Belgium. The organization fosters interdisciplinary research in information and communication technologies (ICT) and strongly engages in transferring these new technologies towards local actors and in creating and supporting new startups. iMinds{\textquoteright} incubation and entrepreneurship programs act as catalysts for open innovation and company startup activities in the Flemish region.},
	keywords = {clusters of innovation, incubation programs, startup ecosystem, technology entrepreneurship, university-industry interaction},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/677},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/677},
	author = {Sven H. De Cleyn and Frank Gielen and Jan Coppens}
}
@article {656,
	title = {Key Factors Affecting a Technology Entrepreneur{\textquoteright}s Choice of Incubator or Accelerator},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {02/2013},
	pages = {16-22},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology entrepreneurship rarely succeeds in isolation; increasingly, it occurs in interconnected networks of business partners and other organizations. For entrepreneurs lacking access to an established business ecosystem, incubators and accelerators provide a possible support mechanism for access to partners and resources. Yet, these relatively recent approaches to supporting entrepreneurship are still evolving. Therefore, it can be challenging for entrepreneurs to assess these mechanisms and to make insightful decisions on whether or not to join an incubator or accelerator, and which incubator or accelerator best meets their needs.

In this article, five key factors that entrepreneurs should take into consideration about incubators and accelerators are offered. Insights are drawn from two surveys of managers and users of incubators and accelerators. An understanding of these five key success factors (stage of venture, fit with incubator{\textquoteright}s mission, selection and graduation policies, services provided, and network of partners) and potential pitfalls will help entrepreneurs confidently enter into a relationship with an incubator or accelerator. },
	keywords = {accelerator, entrepreneur, incubator, technology entrepreneurship, venture},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/656},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/656},
	author = {Diane A. Isabelle}
}
@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 {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 {556,
	title = {Applying the Theory of the Firm to Examine a Technology Startup at the Investment Stage},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {05/2012},
	pages = {23-27},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The investment stage of a new technology firm is when resources, opportunities, investors, and early customers first converge. Currently, technology entrepreneurs make many expensive mistakes. They invest in assets and develop capabilities that prove to have limited value. They take too long to discover and validate the product-market fit for their firms during the investment stage and run out of time and money. Understanding how theory can help entrepreneurs make decisions during the investment stage is important to accelerate new-firm formation and growth as well as to reduce the uncertainty of founders and stakeholders of technology firms. 
 
This article introduces a model developed to examine deal making during the investment stage of a new technology firm. It is an extension of a model of lateral firm scope proposed by Oliver Hart and Bengt Holmstrom. The extensions come from considering a technology firm as being both a deal-making entity and a pool of resources during the investment stage. A deal is the result of a decision the entrepreneur and others make to coordinate (i.e., work together to achieve a common objective). Benefits from a deal include cash profits for the firm and private benefits for the entrepreneur. 

This extended model is then applied to examine the author{\textquoteright}s firm which is still in the investment stage. Application of the extended model to a real-life situation generated two important insights: i) when private benefits include learning from experimentation, the number of deals increases and ii) at the start of the investment stage, private benefits drive deal-making, whereas at the end of the investment stage, cash profits derived from asset ownership drive deal-making.
},
	keywords = {deals, investment, technology entrepreneurship, theory of the firm},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/556},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/556},
	author = {Michael Ayukawa}
}
@article {545,
	title = {Business Model Discovery by Technology Entrepreneurs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {04/2012},
	pages = {5-16},
	abstract = {Value creation and value capture are central to technology entrepreneurship. The ways in which a particular firm creates and captures value are the foundation of that firm{\textquoteright}s business model, which is an explanation of how the business delivers value to a set of customers at attractive profits. Despite the deep conceptual link between business models and technology entrepreneurship, little is known about the processes by which technology entrepreneurs produce successful business models. This article makes three contributions to partially address this knowledge gap. First, it argues that business model discovery by technology entrepreneurs can be, and often should be, disciplined by both intention and structure. Second, it provides a tool for disciplined business model discovery that includes an actionable process and a worksheet for describing a business model in a form that is both concise and explicit. Third, it shares preliminary results and lessons learned from six technology entrepreneurs applying a disciplined process to strengthen or reinvent the business models of their own nascent technology businesses.},
	keywords = {business models, commercialization, innovation, technology entrepreneurship, value capture, value creation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/545},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/545},
	author = {Steven Muegge}
}
@article {553,
	title = {Categorizing the Growth Strategies of Small Firms},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {05/2012},
	pages = {5-9},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This study investigates the link between a small firm{\textquoteright}s investment in R\&D and its growth strategy. A firm{\textquoteright}s growth strategy refers to the means by which the organization plans to achieve its objective to grow in volume and turnover. We categorize firm growth strategies into eight distinctive clusters: opportunity explorers, radical innovators, business developers, business expanders, profit makers, business rebuilders, stagnators, and downsizers. We argue that understanding a firm{\textquoteright}s growth orientation provides a way to assess the returns of its R\&D investments, because an organization{\textquoteright}s intangible growth strategies and tangible inputs are connected.  },
	keywords = {growth orientation, growth strategies, R\&D investment, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/553},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/553},
	author = {Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {534,
	title = {A Customer Value Creation Framework for Businesses That Generate Revenue with Open Source Software},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {03/2012},
	pages = {18-22},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology entrepreneurs must create value for customers in order to generate revenue. This article examines the dimensions of customer value creation and provides a framework to help entrepreneurs, managers, and leaders of open source projects create value, with an emphasis on businesses that generate revenue from open source assets. The proposed framework focuses on a firm{\textquoteright}s pre-emptive value offering (also known as a customer value proposition). This is a firm{\textquoteright}s offering of the value it seeks to create for a customer, in order to meet his or her requirements.},
	keywords = {customer value, customer value creation, open source business, technology entrepreneurship, value proposition},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/534},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/534},
	author = {Aparna Shanker}
}
@article {592,
	title = {Editorial: Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century (August 2012)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {08/2012},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {entrepreneurship, innovation, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/592},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/592},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {544,
	title = {Editorial: Technology Entrepreneurship (April 2012)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {04/2012},
	pages = {3-4},
	keywords = {technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/544},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/544},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Tony Bailetti}
}
@article {519,
	title = {Editorial: Technology Entrepreneurship (February 2012)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {02/2012},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/519},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/519},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Tony Bailetti}
}
@article {531,
	title = {Editorial: Technology Entrepreneurship (March 2012)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {03/2012},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/531},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/531},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Tony Bailetti}
}
@article {552,
	title = {Editorial: Technology Entrepreneurship (May 2012)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {05/2012},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {entrepreneur, global entrepreneurship, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/552},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/552},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Tony Bailetti}
}
@article {532,
	title = {Global from the Start: The Characteristics of Born-Global Firms in the Technology Sector},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {03/2012},
	pages = {5-8},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article provides insights from recent research on firms that are "born global". A born-global firm is a venture launched to exploit a global niche from the first day of its operations. The insights in this article are relevant to technology entrepreneurs and top management teams of new technology firms. After discussing various definitions for the term "born global" and identifying the main characteristics of born-global firms, this article lists a few salient characteristics of firms that are born global in the technology sector. The article concludes by identifying opportunities for future research.},
	keywords = {born global, international business, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/532},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/532},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev}
}
@article {579,
	title = {Hacking Health: Bottom-up Innovation for Healthcare},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {07/2012},
	pages = {31-35},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Healthcare is not sustainable and still functions with outdated technology (e.g., pagers, paper records).  Top-down approaches by governments and corporations have failed to deliver digital technologies to modernize healthcare. Disruptive innovation must come from the ground up by bridging the gap between front-line health experts and innovators in the latest web and mobile technology. Hacking Health is a hackathon that is focused on social innovation more than technical innovation. Our approach to improve healthcare is to pair technological innovators with healthcare experts to build realistic, human-centric solutions to front-line healthcare problems.},
	keywords = {hackathon, hacking health, healthcare, social innovation, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/579},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/579},
	author = {Jeeshan Chowdhury}
}
@article {548,
	title = {How Do Large Companies Manage Their Investments Across the Three Horizons?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {04/2012},
	pages = {28-34},
	abstract = {Technical entrepreneurship continues to be important to a technology company{\textquoteright}s health and growth, even after it has successfully delivered its first product. It is essential to help the company deal with competitive forces and to renew its revenue stream. However, as the company grows, its entrepreneurial capability often becomes handicapped both by company culture as well as external pressures. The company must achieve the right mix of investment and level of attention across three time horizons of growth: immediate, imminent, and future. This balancing act requires a commitment to a strategic growth goal, appropriate tools, and leaders that can manage significant degrees of uniqueness in the resources that address each of these time horizons.

This article discusses some of the horizon-management challenges faced by top management teams of large companies and overviews some mechanisms and processes that have worked effectively. Large companies must overcome internal teams{\textquoteright} divergent values and culture as well as significant external, short-term pressures being applied by their existing base of customers and markets. Discipline at the entry point to Horizon 3 (exploratory phase) and then a rapid transition to Horizon 1 (current operations) is the priority of any successful growth company.
},
	keywords = {horizon management, investment, large companies, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/548},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/548},
	author = {Peter Carbone}
}
@article {555,
	title = {Making Money from Exploiting Schumpeterian Opportunities: John Sanguinetti and the Electronic Design Automation Industry},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {05/2012},
	pages = {18-22},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Accounts of the effect that John Sanguinetti{\textquoteright}s two companies had on the market for integrated circuit design languages were used to gain insights on how to profit from the exploitation of Schumpeterian opportunities. This article will be of interest to entrepreneurs who expect to profit from exploiting opportunities that disrupt the status quo. To write this article, the author reviewed the literature on Schumpeterian and Kirznerian opportunities and examined the writings of and about Sanguinetti and his companies, blogs written by industry insiders, and articles in industry trade journals. Sanguinetti{\textquoteright}s first company introduced a new technology and his second company introduced a new business strategy and a new technology. Both of Sanguinetti{\textquoteright}s companies undermined the capital investments of the established incumbents and created new value for customers. The article provides three main insights. First, deep knowledge and experience in the customer domain enable an entrepreneur to recognize and act to profit from a Schumpeterian opportunity. Second, to profit from a Schumpeterian opportunity the entrepreneur needs to combine technology and business model components in a way that adds significant value to customers. Third, large amounts of venture capital may or may not be required to exploit Schumpeterian opportunities. },
	keywords = {CynLib, EDA industry, integrated circuit design, John Sanguinetti, Schumpter, technology entrepreneurship, verilog, VHDL},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/555},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/555},
	author = {Arthur Low}
}
@article {557,
	title = {An Overview of Four Issues on Technology Entrepreneurship in the TIM Review},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {05/2012},
	pages = {28-34},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The field of technology entrepreneurship is in its infancy when compared to other fields such as economics and management. Articles on technology entrepreneurship have been published in at least 62 journals, of which only 18 contribute to technology innovation management or entrepreneurship. Less than a handful of these 62 journals are considered to be "good" journals and none can claim a leadership position in technology entrepreneurship. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the 20 journal articles published in the February, March, April, and May 2012 issues of the Technology Innovation Management Review (TIM Review).},
	keywords = {creative destruction, global entrepreneurship, journal articles, social entrepreneurship, technology entrepreneurship, theory},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/557},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/557},
	author = {Tony Bailetti and Sonia D. Bot and Tom Duxbury and David Hudson and Chris McPhee and Steven Muegge and Michael Weiss and Jonathan Wells and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {547,
	title = {Process Ambidexterity for Entrepreneurial Firms},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {04/2012},
	pages = {21-27},
	abstract = {Technology-based entrepreneurial firms must effectively support both mainstream exploitation and new-stream exploration in order to remain competitive for the long term. The processes that support exploitation and exploration initiatives are different in terms of logistics, payoff horizons, and capabilities. Few firms are able to strike a balance between the two, where mainstream exploitation usually trumps new-stream exploration. The ultimate goal is for the firm to operate effectively in a repeatable, scalable, and systematic manner, rather than relying on good luck and hoping either to come up with the next innovation or for the product to function according to its requirements. 

This article builds on the author{\textquoteright}s years of experience in building businesses and transforming medium and large-sized, entrepreneurial technology firms, leading large-scale breakthrough and sustained performance improvements by using and evolving Lean Six Sigma methodologies, and reviews of technology innovation management and entrepreneurship literature. This article provides a process-based perspective to understanding and addressing the issues on balancing mainstream exploitation and new-stream exploration in medium and large-sized entrepreneurial firms and extending it to startups. The resulting capability is known as process ambidexterity and requires disciplined, agile, and lean business management.
},
	keywords = {business management, exploitation, exploration, performance improvement, process ambidexterity, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/547},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/547},
	author = {Sonia D. Bot}
}
@article {554,
	title = {Results-Based Organization Design for Technology Entrepreneurs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {05/2012},
	pages = {10-17},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Faced with considerable uncertainty, entrepreneurs would benefit from clearly defined objectives, a plan to achieve these objectives (including a reasonable expectation that this plan will work), as well as a means to measure progress and make requisite course corrections. In this article, the author combines the benefits of results-based management with the benefits of organization design to describe a practical approach that technology entrepreneurs can use to design their organizations so that they deliver desired outcomes. This approach links insights from theory and practice, builds logical connections between entrepreneurial activities and desired outcomes, and measures progress toward those outcomes. This approach also provides a mechanism for entrepreneurs to make continual adjustments and improvements to their design and direction in response to data, customer and stakeholder feedback, and changes in their business environment.},
	keywords = {design principles, logic model, organization design, performance management, results-based management, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/554},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/554},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {520,
	title = {Technology Entrepreneurship: Overview, Definition, and Distinctive Aspects},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {02/2012},
	pages = {5-12},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology entrepreneurship lies at the heart of many important debates, including those around launching and growing firms, regional economic development, selecting the appropriate stakeholders to take ideas to markets, and educating managers, engineers, and scientists. Unless a generally accepted definition of technology entrepreneurship is established, however, these debates lose their focus.

The purpose of this article is to identify the themes that dominate the technology entrepreneurship literature, provide a definition of technology entrepreneurship, and identify its distinguishing aspects relative to economics, entrepreneurship, and management. 

The author argues that technology entrepreneurship is an investment in a project that assembles and deploys specialized individuals and heterogeneous assets to create and capture value for the firm. What distinguishes technology entrepreneurship from other entrepreneurship types (e.g., social entrepreneurship, small business management, and self-employment) is the collaborative experimentation and production of new products, assets, and their attributes, which are intricately related to advances in scientific and technological knowledge and the firm{\textquoteright}s asset ownership rights. 
},
	keywords = {entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship, technology entrepreneurs, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/520},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/520},
	author = {Tony Bailetti}
}
@article {569,
	title = {TIM Lecture Series: Leadership Position in Technology Entrepreneurship and Commercialization},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {06/2012},
	pages = {49-53},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {commercialization, global entrepreneurship, leadership, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/569},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/569},
	author = {TIM Program}
}
@article {537,
	title = {TIM Lecture Series: The Business of Mobile Apps},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {03/2012},
	pages = {32-34},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {apps, mobile applications, smartphones, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/537},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/537},
	author = {Brian Hurley}
}
@article {550,
	title = {TIM Lecture Series: The Importance of Dealing with Risk for New Businesses},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {04/2012},
	pages = {41-43},
	keywords = {insurance, risk management, startups, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/550},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/550},
	author = {Tony Lackey}
}
