%0 Journal Article %J Technology Innovation Management Review %D 2018 %T Editorial: Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries (February 2018) %A Chris McPhee %A R. Sandra Schillo %A Louise Earl %A Jeff Kinder %K biotechnology %K convergent innovation %K food security %K inclusive growth %K inclusive innovation %K maker spaces %K Open innovation %B Technology Innovation Management Review %I Talent First Network %C Ottawa %V 8 %P 3-6 %8 02/2018 %G eng %U http://timreview.ca/article/1134 %N 2 %1 Technology Innovation Management Review Chris McPhee is Editor-in-Chief of the Technology Innovation Management Review. Chris holds an MASc degree in Technology Innovation Management from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, and BScH and MSc degrees in Biology from Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada. He has nearly 20 years of management, design, and content-development experience in Canada and Scotland, primarily in the science, health, and education sectors. As an advisor and editor, he helps entrepreneurs, executives, and researchers develop and express their ideas. %2 University of Ottawa R. Sandra Schillo is an Assistant Professor in Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada, and an affiliate of the Institute for Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa. Prof. Schillo’s research investigates systems aspects of innovation and entrepreneurship in her academic work and places emphasis on contributions to practice. Prof. Schillo holds a PhD in management from the University of Kiel, Germany, and a Master’s (Diplom) in engineering management from the University of Karlsruhe, Germany. %3 Statistics Canada Louise Earl is a Section Chief in the Investment, Science and Technology Division at Statistics Canada has been active in the measurement and analysis of science, technology and innovation since 2000. Louise holds a Master of Arts from Queen’s University, Kingston and a Bachelor of Arts degree with first class honours from the University of New Brunswick. Louise is a vice chair of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators. She is actively involved in the soon to be concluded revision of the OECD’s Oslo Manual, Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. She contributed to the Frascati Manual 2015, Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Development revision. She is the co-editor of National Innovation, Indicators and Policy (2006, Edward Elgar) and is the author of chapters in Measuring Knowledge Management in the Business Sector: First Steps (2003, OECD). Her analytical works at Statistics Canada on topics such as impacts of science, technology and innovation; organization and technological change in the public and private sectors; indicators of growth firms; knowledge management practices; household e-commerce; and wage gaps have been published in the Canadian Economic Observer, Perspectives on Labour and Income, Services Indicators, Health Reports, Focus on Culture, and various working papers series. %4 Institute on Governance Jeff Kinder, Director of Innovation at the Institute on Governance has almost 30 years of experience in government science, technology and innovation policy in the US and Canada. His US experience includes the National Science Foundation, the National Academies and the Naval Research Laboratory. In Canada, Jeff has worked at Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Council of Science and Technology Advisors. In 2014, he supported the External Advisory Group on Federal S&T (the Knox Panel). Most recently, he led the Federal Science and Technology Secretariat supporting the Minister of Science, the Deputy Minister Champion for Federal S&T and related initiatives. He is now on interchange with the Institute on Governance where he leads the ASPIRE Innovation Collaboratory. At the University of Ottawa, Jeff is a Fellow of the Institute for Science, Society and Policy and an adjunct professor at the Telfer School of Management. He is author and co-editor with Paul Dufour of A Lantern on the Bow: A History of the Science Council of Canada (forthcoming from Invenire), author of Government Science 2020: Re-thinking Public Science in a Networked Age and co-author with Bruce Doern of Strategic Science in the Public Interest: Canada’s Government Laboratories and Science-Based Agencies (U. Toronto Press, 2007). He holds a PhD in public policy, a Master’s in science, technology, and public policy, and a BS in physics. %R http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1134 %0 Journal Article %J Technology Innovation Management Review %D 2018 %T Frugal or Fair? The Unfulfilled Promises of Frugal Innovation %A Mario Pansera %K frugal innovation %K inclusive innovation %K scarcity %K social justice %X Frugal innovation has become a popular buzzword among management and business scholars. However, despite its popularity, I argue that the frugal innovation literature, in its present form, is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the frugal innovation literature assumes that scarcity is a normal condition of the “Global South”. In this article, I show that this assumption neglects the fact that scarcity can be socially constructed to deny certain social sectors the access to resources essential for their flourishing. Second, despite all the good intentions underpinning the idea of “alleviating poverty”, frugal innovation studies rarely challenge, or even discuss, the causes of destitution and social exclusion. Innovation, as well as technology, is overwhelmingly framed in an agnostic and neutral way that sidelines the socio-economic complexity of the exclusion mechanisms that cause poverty and underdevelopment. By ignoring this, the frugal innovation literature risks limiting the understanding of the problems it seeks to solve and, most importantly, it risks limiting its impact. Most frugal innovation literature, in other words, seems to elude the fact that, rather than being a mere lack of resources or technology, poverty is a matter of social justice. In order to be empowering, technology has to be value-based, normative framed, socially controlled, and democratically debated. In this article, I propose that we should use these principles to develop a new wave of frugal innovation literature and practice. %B Technology Innovation Management Review %I Talent First Network %C Ottawa %V 8 %P 6-13 %8 04/2018 %G eng %U http://timreview.ca/article/1148 %N 4 %1 University of Bristol Mario Pansera is a Research Fellow at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom. He gained a PhD in Management from the University of Exeter Business School in the United Kingdom. His dissertation focused on the discourses of innovation and development with a particular interest for the Global South. He joined the University of Bristol after completing a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Post-Doctoral fellowship at the Academy of Business in Society in Brussels. His primary research interests are responsible research and innovation, sustainable and ecological transition, and the critique of the development discourse and growth. He is also particularly interested in the dynamics of innovation in emerging economies, appropriate technologies, grassroots, and social innovations. %R http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1148 %0 Journal Article %J Technology Innovation Management Review %D 2018 %T Inclusive Innovation in Biohacker Spaces: The Role of Systems and Networks %A Jeremy de Beer %A Vipal Jain %K biohacker spaces %K biohacking %K biotechnology %K crowdfunding %K inclusive innovation %K innovation %K law %K regulation %K social networks %X In this article, we examine the development of biohacker spaces and their impact on innovation systems through the lens of inclusive innovation. Examining issues associated with people, activities, outcomes, and governance, we observe that biohacker spaces offer an alternative approach to biotechnological research outside the orthodox walls of academia, industry, and government. We explain that harnessing the full innovative potential of these spaces depends on flexible legal and regulatory systems, including appropriate biosafety regulations and intellectual property policies and practices, and organic, community-based social and financial networking. %B Technology Innovation Management Review %I Talent First Network %C Ottawa %V 8 %P 27-37 %8 02/2018 %G eng %U http://timreview.ca/article/1137 %N 2 %1 University of Ottawa Jeremy de Beer is a Full Professor at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, where he is a member of the Centre for Law, Technology, and Society. He is a Senior Research Associate at the IP Unit, University of Cape Town and a co-founding director of the Open African Innovation Research network, Open AIR. He is online at www.JeremydeBeer.com. %2 University of Ottawa Vipal Jain is a Juris Doctor candidate (2018) at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, Common Law Section. She is a member of the Open African Innovation Research (Open AIR) network’s New and Emerging Researcher Group, focusing on intellectual property law issues in Canada and elsewhere. She holds a BSc from the University of Toronto, where she specialized in Genetics and Biotechnology. %R http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1137 %0 Journal Article %J Technology Innovation Management Review %D 2017 %T Editorial: 10th Anniversary Issue (July 2017) %A Chris McPhee %K ecosystems %K entrepreneurship %K inclusive innovation %K India %K knowledge commercialization %K living labs %K OSBR %K TIM Review %K topic modelling %K universities %K urban %B Technology Innovation Management Review %I Talent First Network %C Ottawa %V 7 %P 3-4 %8 07/2017 %G eng %U http://timreview.ca/article/1086 %N 7 %1 Technology Innovation Management Review Chris McPhee is Editor-in-Chief of the Technology Innovation Management Review. Chris holds an MASc degree in Technology Innovation Management from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, and BScH and MSc degrees in Biology from Queen's University in Kingston, Canada. He has nearly 20 years of management, design, and content-development experience in Canada and Scotland, primarily in the science, health, and education sectors. As an advisor and editor, he helps entrepreneurs, executives, and researchers develop and express their ideas. %R http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1086 %0 Journal Article %J Technology Innovation Management Review %D 2017 %T Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries: The Who, What, Why, and How %A R. Sandra Schillo %A Ryan M. Robinson %K developed countries %K framework %K inclusive innovation %K inequality %K social exclusion %X Although widely appreciated as an important driver of economic growth, innovation has also been established as a contributor to increasing economic and social inequalities. Such negative consequences are particularly obvious in the context of developing countries and extreme poverty, where innovation’s contributions to inequalities are considered an issue of social and economic exclusion. In response, the concept of inclusive innovation has been developed to provide frameworks and action guidelines to measure and reduce the inequality-increasing effects of innovation. In developing countries, attention has only recently turned to the role of innovation in increasing inequalities, for example in the context of the degradation of employment in the transition from production to service industries. Although the focus of this early work is primarily on economic growth, innovation in developed countries also contributes to social exclusion, both of groups traditionally subject to social exclusion and new groups marginalized through arising innovations. This article summarizes the origins of the concept of inclusive innovation and proposes a four-dimensional framework for inclusive innovation in developed countries. Specifically, innovation needs to be inclusive in terms of people, activities, outcomes, and governance: i) individuals and groups participating in the innovation process at all levels; ii) the types of innovation activities considered; iii) the consideration of all positive and negative outcomes of innovation (including economic, social, and environmental); and iv) the governance of innovation systems. This framework is intended to guide policy development for inclusive innovation, as well as to encourage academics to investigate all dimensions of inclusive innovation in developed countries. %B Technology Innovation Management Review %I Talent First Network %C Ottawa %V 7 %P 34-46 %8 07/2017 %G eng %U http://timreview.ca/article/1089 %N 7 %1 University of Ottawa R. Sandra Schillo is an Assistant Professor in Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada, and an affiliate of the Institute for Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa. Prof. Schillo’s research explores aspects of innovation and entrepreneurship that have policy and societal relevance. She has a strong background in technology transfer through her PhD (University of Kiel, Germany) and Master’s level research (University of Karlsruhe, Germany). She also has practical experience in innovation management within the Canadian federal government and consulting on innovation and entrepreneurship policy issues. %2 University of Ottawa Ryan M. Robinson is a Third Year Undergraduate student attending the University of Ottawa’s Telfer School of Business Management in Ottawa, Canada. He was born and raised in Oshawa, Canada: a city with its history carved out by advances in technological innovation. Today, Ryan balances living in these two very different locales, both of which are writing the story of diversity and inclusion in Canada. Being continuously surrounded by innovative landscapes, Ryan plans continue to study the evolution of innovation in Canada following the completion of his degree in Finance. %R http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1089