02093nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245006500055210006500120260004200185300000900227490000600236520141900242653002301661653001501684653002701699653001401726653002501740653002901765653001701794100001601811856003601827       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aEvolution of Wireless Sensor Networks for Industrial Control0 aEvolution of Wireless Sensor Networks for Industrial Control  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2013  a5-120 v33 aTechnologies evolve in a process of gradual scientific change, but the commercial application of technologies is discontinuous. Managers interested in technology evolution can integrate these contrasting ideas using a powerful theoretical framework, based on the concept of punctuated equilibrium from evolutionary biology. The framework, which enables the differentiation of the technical evolution of a technology from its market application, is used in this article to compare the two standards for wireless sensor networks (WSN) for industrial instrumentation and control: WirelessHART and ISA100.11a. 

The two WSN standards are the product of two different market contexts, which have selected different minimum viable technologies for evolution in their respective niches. Network security issues present some important selection criteria. Both WSN standards implement security countermeasures against localized wireless network attacks based on the application of the AES encryption standard, but some specific security threats – some local, others remotely launched – are only well-defended by the adoption of public-key cryptographic (PKC) protocols, which only ISA100.11a supports. This article concludes that the mainstream market potential of the Internet has influenced the evolution of ISA100.11a and will continue to demand that each WSN standard evolve in ways that are difficult to predict.10aindustrial control10aISA100.11a10apunctuated equilibrium10astandards10atechnology evolution10awireless sensor networks10aWirelessHART1 aLow, Arthur  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/68202627nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245006100055210006100116260004200177300001000219490000600229520192000235653002402155653003002179653002202209653001802231653001402249653001902263653003202282100001602314700001902330856003602349       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aKeystone Business Models for Network Security Processors0 aKeystone Business Models for Network Security Processors  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2013  a25-330 v33 aNetwork 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 “fabless semiconductor” models nor the silicon intellectual-property licensing (“IP-licensing”) 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 “keystone” 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.10abusiness ecosystems10abusiness model innovation10acommercialization10acybersecurity10aplatforms10asemiconductors10atechnology entrepreneurship1 aLow, Arthur1 aMuegge, Steven  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/70302096nas a2200241   4500008003900000022001400039245012500053210006900178260004200247300001000289490000600299520135100305653001101656653001701667653003001684653002101714653001401735653003201749653001201781653000901793100001601802856003601818       2012                          d  a1927-032100aMaking Money from Exploiting Schumpeterian Opportunities: John Sanguinetti and the Electronic Design Automation Industry0 aMaking Money from Exploiting Schumpeterian Opportunities John Sa  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2012  a18-220 v23 aAccounts of the effect that John Sanguinetti’s two companies had on the market for integrated circuit design languages were used to gain insights on how to profit from the exploitation of Schumpeterian opportunities. This article will be of interest to entrepreneurs who expect to profit from exploiting opportunities that disrupt the status quo. To write this article, the author reviewed the literature on Schumpeterian and Kirznerian opportunities and examined the writings of and about Sanguinetti and his companies, blogs written by industry insiders, and articles in industry trade journals. Sanguinetti’s first company introduced a new technology and his second company introduced a new business strategy and a new technology. Both of Sanguinetti's companies undermined the capital investments of the established incumbents and created new value for customers. The article provides three main insights. First, deep knowledge and experience in the customer domain enable an entrepreneur to recognize and act to profit from a Schumpeterian opportunity. Second, to profit from a Schumpeterian opportunity the entrepreneur needs to combine technology and business model components in a way that adds significant value to customers. Third, large amounts of venture capital may or may not be required to exploit Schumpeterian opportunities. 10aCynLib10aEDA industry10aintegrated circuit design10aJohn Sanguinetti10aSchumpter10atechnology entrepreneurship10averilog10aVHDL1 aLow, Arthur  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/55502608nas a2200121   4500008004100000022001400041245004900055210004900104260004200153520223900195100001602434856003602450       2011                        eng d  a1913-610200aDeveloping Silicon IP with Open Source Tools0 aDeveloping Silicon IP with Open Source Tools  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/20113 aThe electronic design automation (EDA) tool industry is big business, and commercial licenses are extremely expensive. Open standards have driven many proprietary EDA technologies to be publicly released as free/libre open source software (F/LOSS) and some have become IEEE standards. Competition has partly given way to collaboration and has led to these standards. The development path of important EDA tools frequently now employs F/LOSS practices, which have overcome resistance to collaborative innovation between competing businesses. F/LOSS technologies are at the vanguard of leading-edge system-on-chip (SoC) design, not just because they are free, but also because they are valuable. 

The first commercial integrated circuits (ICs), designed by hand, helped guide manned space flight to the moon on the Apollo missions. In the past decade, silicon IP firms have shown they are limited only by their ideas, not by limited investment opportunities, and SoC firms have shown they can greatly reduce costs while innovating on the development of the largest new IC designs. This high-end technology is made accessible to startups because of open source. It is no longer just for mega-corporations. 

This article reviews the history of key advances in ICs and EDA tools. The common theme presented in this article for the driver of technology innovation is the requirement to develop the most advanced microprocessor possible. Today, a low-cost, high-value-added business model can efficiently serve the market for IC subsystems licensed as intellectual property (silicon IP) in the form of compilable source code. Alternatively, for larger SoC designs, engineering budgets can be shifted from the purchase of a relatively small number of high-cost EDA tool licenses to open source EDA technologies that can be run on massive compute-server farms. The two business models are not theoretical, but realistic. The author explains how his company (Crack Semiconductor) developed commercially successful cryptographic silicon IP using entirely open source EDA technologies and how another company (SiCortex) pushed the limits of IC design and open source EDA tools by simulating and verifying a massively parallel supercomputer.1 aLow, Arthur  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/44201368nas a2200157   4500008004100000022001400041245004100055210004000096260004200136520092000178100002101098700001601119700002001135700001901155856003601174       2011                        eng d  a1913-610200aNokia's Hybrid Business Model for Qt0 aNokias Hybrid Business Model for Qt  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/20113 aIn today's challenging economy, startup companies are finding it more and more difficult to gain a foothold and traction in the market. Free/libre open source software (F/LOSS) allows a company to gain exposure to their products. However, few firms offer F/LOSS solutions alone. The vast majority combine proprietary and open source products while receiving revenues from both traditional license fees and open source offerings (Bonaccorsi and Giannangeli, 2006). This dual practice of offering F/LOSS as well as a commercial license is a hybrid business model.

In this article, we focus on the hybrid business model for Nokia's Qt product: how it is implemented, why it was implemented, and the extent to which the model has been effective. The Qt story illustrates how F/LOSS business models were developed during a period when participants were just beginning to understand how to make money with open source.1 aSchreuders, John1 aLow, Arthur1 aEsprit, Kenneth1 aJoachim, Nerva  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/413