@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 {1192,
	title = {When a New Platform Enters a Market, What Is the Impact on Incumbents?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {10/2018},
	pages = {44-53},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Digital platforms enable new forms of business models with the potential to disrupt and transform many industries. However, the impact of a platform{\textquoteright}s market entry on incumbents has not been taken into account. In this article, our objective is to provide evidence of the impact that a platform{\textquoteright}s market entry could have on incumbents. We proposed several hypotheses based on a literature review and then evaluated them using a large dataset from the taxi industry in New York City. Our analysis showed several changes after a platform{\textquoteright}s market entry. In contrast to previous understanding, the results indicate that the winner-takes-it-all-effect does not generally apply to the competition between new platforms and incumbents. Regarding the date of changes following a platform{\textquoteright}s market entry, we observed a chicken-or-egg problem in the competition between a platform and incumbents. Consequently, our results indicate that incumbents have at least one year to react to the market entry and to make adjustments. },
	keywords = {impact of market entry, incumbents, multi-sided market, platform competition, platforms, two-sided market},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1192},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1192},
	author = {Andreas J. Steur}
}
@article {1102,
	title = {Anticipating Alternative Futures for the Platform Economy},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {09/2017},
	pages = {6-16},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite the considerable hype around platforms, our understanding of what the platform economy means and what drivers will define future development trajectories is limited. Companies and policy makers have a great need to investigate what potential opportunities will arise from the platform economy. A shared perception of uncertainties and a strong vision are prerequisites for the development of the platform economy. In this article, we describe a systematic way to develop a resilient vision for a new platform ecosystem, both from the viewpoint of national policy makers and corporate strategy makers in the heavy engineering industry. The process uses morphological analysis for scenario development and robust portfolio modelling for creating resilient strategies. The results include a list of key uncertainties, three general scenarios (sustainable development by Europe; polarization driven by China and the United States; US-driven fast, unreliable growth) as well as steel-industry specific scenarios based on these uncertainties, elements of a resilient vision, and strategies for coping with the uncertainties described by the scenarios.},
	keywords = {foresight, morphological analysis, platform economy, platforms, portfolio modelling, resilience, scenarios, strategy},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1102},
	author = {Mikko Dufva and Raija Koivisto and Leena Ilmola-Sheppard and Seija Junno}
}
@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 {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 {782,
	title = {Accessing Value-in-Use Information by Integrating Social Platforms into Service Offerings},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {04/2014},
	pages = {26-34},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article proposes a new approach for assessing the value derived from using a service offering (i.e., value-in-use) through the utilization of {\textquotedblleft}social platforms.{\textquotedblright} We define a social platform as an adaptable digital service environment that enables the co-creation of value through social interactions with other service systems. By reviewing the relevant literature, detailed propositions are built based on the integration of theoretical concepts, thereby combining the literature on service-dominant logic, platforms, and social media. The primary argument of the article is that embedding social platforms in a company{\textquoteright}s services may result in more efficient retrieval and understanding of customer insights, better management of customer intelligence, and ultimately higher value-in-use.},
	keywords = {platforms, service systems, service-dominant logic, social media, value-in-use},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/782},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/782},
	author = {Ville Eloranta and Juho-Ville Matveinen}
}
@article {806,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (July 2014)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {07/2014},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {ambidexterity, business ecosystems, business models, entrepreneurship, improvisation, innovation, Internet of Things, knowledge-intensive business services, platforms, public good, publicly funded research, standards, strategy, value co-creation, value design},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/806},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/806},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {808,
	title = {Innovation Opportunities: An Overview of Standards and Platforms in the Video Game Industry},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {07/2014},
	pages = {15-21},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The video game industry offers insights into the significance of standards and platforms. Furthermore, it shows examples of how new entrants can offer innovative services, while reducing their own risk, through bridging the boundaries between standards. Through an exploration of both past and present, this article aims to serve as a primer for understanding, firstly, the technological standards and platforms of the video game industry, and secondly, the recent innovations within the video game industry that have enabled products to be made available across platforms.},
	keywords = {arcade games, computer games, console games, innovation, mobile games, platforms, standards, video game industry},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/808},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/808},
	author = {Mikael Laakso and Linus Nyman}
}
@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 {647,
	title = {Going Open: Does it Mean Giving Away Control?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {01/2013},
	pages = {27-31},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Open source software has evolved from being an effort driven by a collective of volunteers to become an integral part of commercial software. Constant demands for new features besides maintaining product quality made companies seek open source as an answer for these demands. These growing demands brought with them control of quality, architecture, contribution management, and community management. 

This article explores the governance strategies adopted by open source software projects to manage the quality of complements (such as plug-ins that extend a platform{\textquoteright}s functionality) developed by community members outside the core team. The outcomes of the research contribute to our understanding of the strategies followed by different open source platform owners (the open source project initiators) to manage external innovation in the case of platform extensions in two areas: i) governance models and ii) regulatory tools. },
	keywords = {and collaboration, governance, Open innovation, open source, platforms, regulatory tools},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/647},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/647},
	author = {Nadia Noori and Michael Weiss}
}
@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 {696,
	title = {TIM Lecture Series {\textendash} Using Risk to Drive a Security Service},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {06/2013},
	pages = {42-45},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {cybersecurity, platforms, risk management, security, services, strategy, uncertainty},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/696},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/696},
	author = {Paul Card}
}
