@article {1195,
	title = {Collaboration Strategies in Innovation Ecosystems: An Empirical Study of the German Microelectronics and Photonics Industries},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {11/2018},
	pages = {4-12},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Effective collaboration between companies and research organizations is key to successful innovation systems. Against the background of digitalization, a shift from traditional innovation systems towards innovation ecosystems can be observed. In this article, we investigate how companies operating in innovation ecosystems address the challenge of collaboration in dynamic innovation ecosystems. We focus on microelectronics and photonics in Germany as examples of knowledge- and research-intensive industries and analyze the strategies of companies to collaborate with research organizations. We explore whether and to what extent companies develop different and new strategies for collaborating with research institutions within innovation ecosystems, on the basis of which we identify two ideal types of strategies. Whereas ideal type A is aiming towards obtaining specific knowledge in order to further develop a particular technology or product (i.e., towards incremental innovation), ideal type B seeks to harness the new and full potential of innovation ecosystems (i.e., aiming at rather radical innovation). Finally, our findings contribute to a better understanding of innovation ecosystems and give managerial implications for collaborating in such systems. },
	keywords = {business ecosystem, collaboration, development and innovation, innovation ecosystem, innovation ecosystem strategies, knowledge ecosystem, microelectronics, photonics, research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1195},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1195},
	author = {Fabian Schroth and Johann Jakob H{\"a}u{\ss}ermann}
}
@article {1171,
	title = {Q\&A. Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research: Where Are We Now and How Do We Move Forward?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {07/2018},
	pages = {52-57},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {approaches, business ecosystem, entrepreneurial ecosystem, innovation ecosystem, methods, research, theoretical foundations},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1171},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1171},
	author = {Paavo Ritala and Robin Gustafsson}
}
@article {1024,
	title = {Managing Innovation Ecosystems to Create and Capture Value in ICT Industries},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {10/2016},
	pages = {17-24},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In a new knowledge-intensive economic landscape, firms need to access external knowledge sources due to their inability to generate all necessary knowledge on their own. The interaction with and learning from external knowledge sources implies that firms depend upon decisions and actions made by business partners and external support organizations. This network of linkages can be considered as an ecosystem in which commercial enterprises and non-firm organizations interact with one another and work together to create and capture value. Previous studies have shown that a firm{\textquoteright}s ability to successfully commercialize a new product depends not only on its own technology strategy but also its capabilities to manage an innovation ecosystem strategy. Dynamic markets, intense competition, and shorter product lifecycles force companies across different industries to create and capture value more rapidly by launching new innovations. Well-defined and executed innovation ecosystem strategies can help companies to develop new markets and business opportunities for the different types of innovations and enable their businesses to grow. This study provides new insight into how an ecosystem strategy can be formed based on the traditional strategy literature and proposes a conceptual framework for senior leaders to form an ecosystem strategy.},
	keywords = {innovation ecosystem, management, network, strategy, value capture},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1024},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1024},
	author = {Jarkko Pellikka and Timo Ali-Vehmas}
}
@article {1038,
	title = {Profiling Regional Innovation Ecosystems as Functional Collaborative Systems: The Case of Cambridge},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {12/2016},
	pages = {6-25},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {It has been widely recognized that the national and regional development of innovation ecosystems has been a relatively successful model for regional revitalization, bringing together key actors to perform the relevant technology-driven development processes. The ecosystems have been organized and combine readily public sector interests with private sector business-oriented actions. However, all regions are not uniformly successful, which leaves open the question of how to guide the sub-optimum regional systems closer to the front-runner position. Why do some score better than the others? This article presents both theoretical and practical evidence of global best practice in developing regional innovation hubs and renders a fully integrated innovation hub framework that defines a novel, holistic approach to managing these ecosystems. The framework is tested and validated through a selected case study of Cambridge, United Kingdom, identifying the key ecosystem elements that are necessary for building up a solid foundation for the innovative regions.},
	keywords = {Cambridge, innovation ecosystem, management, orchestration, PPP, public{\textendash}private partnership, system thinking},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1038},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1038},
	author = {Jukka Viitanen}
}
@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 {952,
	title = {Contextuality and Co-Creation Matter: A Qualitative Case Study Comparison of Living Lab Concepts in Urban Research},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {48-55},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Innovation development is key to transforming a product-based economy into an innovative service economy by integrating users as co-creators in real-life environments. User co-creation and user involvement are key elements in living labs. Urban living labs add not only the urban component to the conceptual design, but also societal, political, and technological questions. Fields of analysis in urban research relate to socio-spatial environment, living together, and urban policies. The leading question of this article is: to what extent can urban living labs be used as an instrument to support these fields of investigation? Comparing three different approaches for urban living labs, ranging from socially-centred to more technology-centred, we offer a more nuanced understanding of urban living lab design in diverging research contexts. All three case studies manage to go beyond testing and improving new products, which is normally the aim of existing living labs, by embedding innovation in appropriate social, structural, and institutional frameworks, and targeting civil society involvement. The community benefits from this case study comparison because it contextualizes living labs as research methodology to be applied in future urban research projects. },
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation ecosystem, participation, social innovation, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/952},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/952},
	author = {Yvonne Franz and Karin Tausz and Sarah-Kristin Thiel}
}
@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 {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 {934,
	title = {Sustainable Innovation: A Competitive Advantage for Innovation Ecosystems},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {10/2015},
	pages = {24-30},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we elaborate the emerging concept of sustainable innovation and analyze the relevance of innovation as a means to solve wicked problems and enhancing sustainable well-being. We also examine the changing conditions for innovation creation: building global knowledge hubs and local innovation ecosystems. As a result, the drivers of innovation and opportunities to utilize the untapped innovation potential of people outside traditional innovation contexts are expanded and diversified. Ultimately, the success of sustainable innovation constitutes its impact on the well-being of people and vice versa: sustainable well-being is an important source of innovation and growth. The article adds to the conceptual development of sustainable innovation and its motivation, which lies in combining competitiveness, the well-being of people, and inclusive solutions.},
	keywords = {innovation, innovation ecosystem, sustainability, sustainable innovation, well-being},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/934},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/934},
	author = {Kaisa Oksanen and Antti Hautam{\"a}ki}
}
@article {818,
	title = {The Government of India{\textquoteright}s Role in Promoting Innovation through Policy Initiatives for Entrepreneurship Development},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {08/2014},
	pages = {11-17},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In spite of having a large publicly funded science and technology infrastructure and a sizeable education base, India has not been able to realize its innovative potential due to a fragmented innovation ecosystem. The government of India has taken many initiatives towards strengthening the innovation ecosystem, the most important of which are: i) the establishment of the National Innovation Council, whose mandate is to coordinate various innovation-related activities, and ii) the new Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013, which is intended to promote entrepreneurship and science-led solutions for sustainable and inclusive growth. With a focus on this new policy initiative, this article describes the current innovation ecosystem and the challenges it faces, and it discusses the efforts made by the government towards the promotion of innovation for entrepreneurship development and sustainable growth. With the implementation of this new policy the early indications are that India is poised to take a big leap towards innovation-led growth.},
	keywords = {economic growth, entrepreneurship, government, India, innovation, innovation ecosystem, policy},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/818},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/818},
	author = {Ravindra Abhyankar}
}
@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}
}
@article {748,
	title = {Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {12/2013},
	pages = {6-15},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite almost a decade of living lab activity all over Europe, there still is a lack of empirical research into the practical implementation and the related outcomes of living labs. Therefore, this article proposes a framework to create a better understanding of the characteristics and outcomes of living labs. We investigate three living labs in Belgium and one in Finland to learn how the different building blocks of living lab environments contribute to the outputs of innovation projects launched within the lab. The findings imply that managers and researchers contemplating innovation in living labs need to consider the intended inputs and outcomes, and reframe their innovation activities accordingly. We formulate practical guidelines on how living labs should be managed on the levels of community interaction, stakeholder engagement, and methodological setup to succeed in implementing living lab projects and to create user-centred innovations. That way, living lab practitioners can work towards a more sustainable way of setting up living labs that can run innovation projects over a longer period of time. },
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation ecosystem, Living lab, Open innovation, user involvement},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/748},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/748},
	author = {Carina Veeckman and Dimitri Schuurman and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {727,
	title = {Q\&A. What Are the Components of Canada{\textquoteright}s Innovation Ecosystem and How Well Is it Performing?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {09/2013},
	pages = {38-41},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {academia, commercialization, innovation, innovation ecosystem, performance, policy, private sector, public sector},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/727},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/727},
	author = {David B. Watters}
}
