@article {1207,
	title = {Editorial: Technology Commercialization and Entrepreneurship (January 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {01/2019},
	pages = {3-8},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {commercialization, digitalization, e-leadership, entrepreneurship, framework, innovation, internationalization, legitimacy, management, SMEs, startups, technology, technology intensity, ventures},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1207},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1207},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Ferran Giones and Dev K. Dutta}
}
@article {1194,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation Strategy and Practice (November 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {11/2018},
	pages = {3-3},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {best practice, collaboration, creativity, cybersecurity, framework, information security, innovation, innovation ecosystems, maturity model, method, model, practice, research, research institutions, strategy},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1194},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1194},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1200,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs (December 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {analysis, constructs, cultural space, definition, ENoLL, framework, innovation, ISPIM, lean startup, library, living labs, methodology, stakeholder},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1200},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1200},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Dimitri Schuurman and Mika Westerlund and Eelko Huizingh}
}
@article {1069,
	title = {A Cybersecurity Risk Assessment Framework that Integrates Value-Sensitive Design},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {04/2017},
	pages = {32-43},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Medical devices today are more effective and connected than ever before, saving more patient lives and making healthcare practitioner{\textquoteright}s jobs more efficient. But with this interconnectedness comes inherent concerns over increased cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Medical device cybersecurity has become an increasing concern for all relevant stakeholders including: patients, regulators, manufacturers, and healthcare practitioners. Although cybersecurity in medical devices has been covered in the literature, there is a gap in how to address cybersecurity concerns and assess risks in a way that brings value to all relevant stakeholders. In order to maximize the value created from cybersecurity risk mitigations, we review literature on the state of cybersecurity in the medical device industry, on cybersecurity risk management frameworks in the context of medical devices, and on how cybersecurity can be used as a value proposition. We then synthesize the key contributions of the literature into a framework that integrates cybersecurity value considerations for all relevant stakeholders into the risk mitigation process. This framework is subsequently applied to the hypothetical case of an insulin pump. Using this example case, we illustrate how medical device manufacturers can use the framework as a standardized method that can be applicable to medical devices at large. Our ultimate goal is to make cybersecurity risk mitigation an exploitable asset for manufacturers rather than a regulatory obligation. },
	keywords = {cybersecurity, framework, medical devices, risk assessment, value propositions, value-sensitive design},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1069},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1069},
	author = {Aida Alvarenga and George Tanev}
}
@article {1089,
	title = {Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries: The Who, What, Why, and How},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {34-46},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {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{\textquoteright}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.},
	keywords = {developed countries, framework, inclusive innovation, inequality, social exclusion},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1089},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1089},
	author = {R. Sandra Schillo and Ryan M. Robinson}
}
@article {837,
	title = {Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Models for Providers of Critical Infrastructure},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {10/2014},
	pages = {33-39},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Critical infrastructure such as power generation and distribution systems, telecommunications networks, pipelines and pipeline control networks, transportation control networks, financial networks, and government information and communications technology (ICT) have increasingly become the target of cyber-attacks. The impact and cost of these threats, as well as regulatory pressure to mitigate them, have created an impetus to secure these critical infrastructures. Managers have many controls and models at their disposal to help them secure infrastructure technology, including cybersecurity capability maturity models to enable measurement and communication of cybersecurity readiness to top management teams, regulators, and customers, thereby facilitating regulatory compliance, corporate responsibility, and improved brand quality. However, information and awareness is lacking about which models are most appropriate for a given situation and how they should be deployed.

This article examines relevant cybersecurity capability maturity models to identify the standards and controls available to providers of critical infrastructure in an effort to improve their level of security preparedness. These capability models are described and categorized by their relevance to different infrastructure domains, and then recommendations are provided on employing capability maturity models to measure and communicate readiness. This article will be relevant to regulators, critical infrastructure providers, and researchers. },
	keywords = {adoption, bersecurity, capability maturity models, compliance, critical infrastructure, framework, municipalities, protection, regulation, standards},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/837},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/837},
	author = {Walter Miron and Kevin Muita}
}
@article {813,
	title = {TIM Lecture Series {\textendash} The Laboratory for Analytic Sciences: Developing the Art and Science of Analysis},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {07/2014},
	pages = {52-54},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {analysis, analytics, big data, collaboration, cybersecurity, framework, innovation, instrumentation, monitoring, prediction, strategy},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/813},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/813},
	author = {J. David Harris}
}
