@article {1327,
	title = {Kondratieff{\textquoteright}s Economic Waves and Future Scenarios Planning: an approach for organizations},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {02/2020},
	pages = {51-61},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {51},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This manuscript aims to present connections between scenario building techniques and Kondratieff{\textquoteright}s long economic waves, as a way of identifying patterns in medium and long-term planning for companies{\textquoteright} future scenarios. This essay considers two different conceptual contributions to improve forecasting on organizations taking as a departure point Kondratieff{\textquoteright}s economic waves and Schwartz{\textquoteright}s future scenario planning. Analyzing these two theoretical contributions, we concluded that the information obtained through the path of Kondratieff{\textquoteright}s waves can delineate future scenarios as a way to anticipate challenges, opportunities, and threats for organizations{\textquoteright} contingency planning. As a contribution for practitioners, considering these two approaches together enables greater performance for strategic planning of future scenarios that can be applied by organizations across a range of industries.},
	keywords = {Economic waves, foresight, Future studies, Kondratieff., Strategic Planning},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1327},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1327},
	author = {Marcos Ferasso and Eloisio Andrey Bergamaschi}
}
@article {1271,
	title = {Kick-Start for Connectivity: How to Implement Digital Platforms Successfully in Industry 4.0},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {10/2019},
	pages = {5-15},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {5},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Based on digitalization and interconnectedness, Industry 4.0 causes a structural change in the value creation processes, and thus reinforces the transformation of business processes and business models. One way for companies to cope with this development and its associated challenges is to apply digital platforms in the value creation process. As the potential of digital platforms for industrial value creation can only be leveraged to its full extent with adequate implementation, this paper addresses the research question: How are digital platforms best implemented in Industry 4.0 contexts; Using a qualitative case study design, based on 32 semi-structured expert interviews, the study identifies different triggers and initiators, challenges, and respective countermeasures, as thematic core elements of implementation, and requirements for platforms. The research insights contribute to existing literature on Industry 4.0 and digital platforms. In addition, the paper discusses practical implications for industrial companies.},
	keywords = {Buyer-Supplier Relationships, collaboration, digital platforms, Digital Technologies., IIoT, Industry 4.0, Supplier Integration},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1271},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1271},
	author = {Marie-Christin Schmidt and Johannes W. Veile and Julian M. M{\"u}ller and Kai-Ingo Voigt}
}
@article {1205,
	title = {Key Constructs and a Definition of Living Labs as Innovation Platforms},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {51-62},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite the growing popularity of using living labs as innovation platforms and the increasing scholarly attention toward the topic, still relatively little is known about many of their central characteristics. We use a qualitative research approach to identify key constructs of living labs and to understand how these constructs show up in the operation of living labs. So doing, we used theoretical constructs from the literature on user innovation, co-creation, and living labs to analyze a sample of membership applications to the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). The results from the content analysis of 40 applications revealed nine key constructs that are characteristic to living labs: 1) objective, 2) governance, 3) openness, 4) stakeholders, 5) funding, 6) value, 7) communications, 8) infrastructure, and 9) methods. These key constructs provide new insight that helps us to provide a definition of living labs as innovation platforms.},
	keywords = {constructs, definition, ENoLL, innovation, living labs, platform},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1205},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1205},
	author = {Mika Westerlund and Seppo Leminen and Christ Habib}
}
@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 {417,
	title = {Key Player Identification in the Mashup Ecosystem},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2011},
	month = {02/2011},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Articles},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {By combining multiples sources of data to create a new application, mashups represent a powerful source of innovation. Together, the various data providers, developers, mashup platforms, and users constitute an ecosystem that depends on innovation from these various players for its growth and success. This article summarizes recent research into the network structure of the mashup ecosystem, along with the positions and roles of entities within it. This research illustrates analytical methods for identifying key players in an ecosystem, while delivering new insights into the structure of the mashup ecosystem. Finally, the implications of these findings for entrepreneurs and incumbents are discussed.
 },
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/417},
	author = {Monique Bardawil}
}
@article {376,
	title = {Keystone: Adjective or Noun?},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2010},
	month = {09/2010},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Articles},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The gopher tortoise is an unassuming land animal that inhabits sandy regions of the southeastern United States. Like many other desert inhabitants it needs to seek shelter from the heat of the sun. Gopher tortoises are very adept at digging burrows in which they can hide during the peak hours of the day. These burrows offer shelter to many other species that are not able to dig underground. Without the burrows dug by tortoises many types of rodents and snakes would not be able to survive. The existence of the gopher tortoise in its ecosystem affects the health of many other species.

The gopher tortoise is an example of a keystone species or keystone. As in biological ecosystems, some companies or institutions in business ecosystems are instrumental for the better well-being of others. They play the role of a keystone. In this article, we examine the question of what makes a keystone a keystone. We introduce two perspectives on that question: one provided by ecology, the other by network analysis. We then review how the term keystone is used by the literature on business ecosystems.

Two lessons that readers should take from this article are that the keystone concept, as used by the majority of the business ecosystem literature, is not clearly articulated, and that there are many unresolved issues in applying the concept to business ecosystems.},
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/376},
	author = {Michael Weiss}
}
@article {377,
	title = {Keystone Off-The-Shelf},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2010},
	month = {09/2010},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Articles},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we describe the Keystone Off-The-Shelf (KOTS), a project to create a toolkit for platform owners. The toolkit will include everything that is required to operate a platform that supports a new approach to grow the revenue of small technology companies. 

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the KOTS project and the new approach to development and commercialization that it supports. We first describe the project{\textquoteright}s goal, objective, deliverables, and leadership. Next, we compare the new approach to development and commercialization that KOTS supports with two traditional approaches. We then identify the culture that best supports the new approach and provide an overview of the three key conceptual building blocks of this approach: integration of stakeholders{\textquoteright} interests into development and commercialization decisions, value co-creation, and trust building. Finally, we provide the conclusions. 
 },
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/377},
	author = {Tony Bailetti}
}
@article {185,
	title = {Key Elements of Social Innovation},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2008},
	month = {09/2008},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Articles},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article describes four key elements of social innovation: i) social technology; ii) innovation intermediaries; iii) people who drive innovation; and iv) openness. By taking experiences from social technology and examining the impact of "open everything", this article posits the value of innovation intermediaries as critical enablers of success in the emergent field of social innovation.
 },
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/185},
	author = {Allyson Hewitt}
}
@article {106,
	title = {Key Changes to the GNU General Public License},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2007},
	month = {12/2007},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Articles},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {On June 29, 2007, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) issued the GNU General Public License Version 3. The issuance of GPLv3 marked the end of a remarkable public consultation process aimed at revamping the license to address issues that the FSF considers to be a threat to the Free Software movement, and to clarify issues that have been misunderstood or debated since the publications of GPL Version 2 (GPLv2). 

This article introduces the rationale for changing the GPL and introduces the changes that affect patents, Digital Rights Management (DRM), license compatibility, and the linking issue.},
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/106},
	author = {Eric Smith}
}
@article {85,
	title = {Keystone Organization for Ontario{\textquoteright}s Open Source Ecosystem},
	journal = {Open Source Business Resource},
	year = {2007},
	month = {08/2007},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	type = {Articles},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Many companies, individuals and organizations in Ontario produce and use open source assets and processes to provide unique value to their customers, clients, and themselves. To better enable these companies, individuals and organizations to (i) co-evolve capabilities and roles, (ii) align themselves with companies holding leadership roles, and (iii) invest in shared visions, the Talent First Network (TFN) has become the keystone organization of Ontario{\textquoteright}s open source ecosystem. This article introduces the TFN and identifies the steps it is taking to better support the Ontario Open Source Ecosystem. 
},
	issn = {1913-6102},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/85},
	author = {Rowland Few}
}
