01888nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245006900055210006800124260004200192300000900234490000700243520123700250653003601487653002601523653001701549653001401566653002401580100001801604700001801622856003001640       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aCoping with the Double-Edged Sword of Data Sharing in Ecosystems0 aCoping with the DoubleEdged Sword of Data Sharing in Ecosystems  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2021  a5-160 v113 aResearchers and practitioners agree upon the huge potential of Big Data Analytics (BDA) for firms' competitive advantage. Capitalizing on Big Data (BD) often requires sharing firms' data with their stakeholders in an ecosystem. Sharing data, however, is a double-edged sword, because firms might also risk losing their competitive advantage by doing so. This conceptual paper uses extant literature on data analytics to introduce a comprehensive data sharing strategy framework that helps firms decide which data can be shared in an ecosystem, which should be kept secret, or if additional rules and regulations are required for sharing the data. The framework combines two distinct categorizations of data, and it relates the data categories to firms' strategic competitive advantage by employing the Resource-Based View (RBV). Firstly, the framework is grounded in the stages of the data analytics process and secondly, it distinguishes between operative, strategic and monetizable data, a new categorization introduced by this paper. Depending on the categories of data a company intends to share, the framework recommends five distinct data sharing strategies that help mitigating the risk of losing their competitive advantage.10aBig Data Analytics Capabilities10acompetitive advantage10adata sharing10aecosystem10aResource-Based View1 aKugler, Petra1 aPlank, Thomas  utimreview.ca/article/147000980nas a2200373   4500008004100000022001400041245003900055210003600094260004200130300000600172490000700178653002300185653002200208653001400230653001400244653000900258653001600267653001500283653002600298653002300324653002500347653002100372653001400393653001600407653001200423653001900435653001900454653001900473653001600492653002700508100001800535700002300553856003000576       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (January 2021)0 aEditorial Insights January 2021  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2021  a30 v1110aDigital disruption10adigital ecosystem10aeCommerce10aecosystem10aFAIR10aGlobal eCom10ainnovation10aInnovation management10ainnovation process10ainternationalization10ainteroperability10aknowledge10aopportunity10aroadmap10ascientometrics10asmall business10asustainability10atext mining10auniversity cooperation1 aTanev, Stoyan1 aSandstrom, Gregory  utimreview.ca/article/141602339nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245011100055210006900166260004200235300001000277490000700287520165400294653002101948653001401969653003301983653001902016653002202035100001602057700001802073856003002091       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aManaging the Disruption of Mobility Services: How to align the value propositions of key ecosystem players0 aManaging the Disruption of Mobility Services How to align the va  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2021  a13-250 v113 aMany industries nowadays are facing drastic changes that enable and require new forms of interdependencies that facilitate complex ecosystems of interconnected actors. This paper investigates such a transformation facing the mobility sector, as user-centric bundles of mobility services are being introduced and compiled, by referring to the Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) concept. In the process, new value propositions arise that call for aligning the established players with new entrants. The implementation of MaaS is still in its infancy, and many open questions remain about how local authorities should support its emergence. One key challenge relates to decomposing the focal offering of the MaaS ecosystem into complementary value propositions for key players in the industry. This paper presents the results of a constructive design research project, building on interviews with a leading MaaS provider, as well as stakeholders representing national and local authorities in four European cities. The findings emphasize the need to balance a shared desire to disrupt conventional ways of offering mobility services against reluctance to overturn the industry's public and private incumbents. The co-design framework that results serves to summarize five steps that enable MaaS by guiding strategic interaction between local authorities and various players in the mobility ecosystem. In addition, the article builds on ecosystem research insights and emphasizes the need to align value propositions among multiple stakeholders. The study suggests that the mobility sector provides a prominent empirical context for future ecosystem research.10aDesign Framework10aecosystem10aMobility-as-a-Service (MaaS)10aUrban Mobility10avalue proposition1 aWolff, Joel1 aHakanen, Esko  utimreview.ca/article/143301622nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245010800055210006900163260004200232300001000274490000700284520090100291653001401192653001401206653001601220653001201236653001901248653001601267100002101283700002101304700002501325856003001350       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Roadmap for Systematically Identifying Opportunities in Ecosystems Using Scientific Publications Data0 aRoadmap for Systematically Identifying Opportunities in Ecosyste  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2021  a34-550 v113 aOpportunity identification is a continuous process in ecosystems. However, ambiguities and challenges associated with knowledge exploration and exploitation can retard opportunity recognition processes. This in turn may culminate in excessive expenditure of resources or loss of latent opportunities. The present study adopts an analytical approach and proposes a methodological roadmap that utilizes scientometric and text mining techniques. The roadmap uses data from Web of Science as input, and generates insights that support decision-making about resource saving, strategic planning, investment, and policymaking. Our roadmap extends methods used in studying ecosystems by combining existing and novel techniques in data analytics. Using Python and VOSViewer, we show an exemplary application of the new roadmap, framed in the context of the Nordic countries’ renewable energy ecosystem. 10aecosystem10aknowledge10aopportunity10aroadmap10ascientometrics10atext mining1 aKhademi, Behrooz1 aLampela, Hannele1 aSmyrnios, Kosmas, X.  utimreview.ca/article/141501452nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245008900055210006900144260004200213300000900255490000700264520076900271653002201040653001401062653001501076653001001091653000801101653001301109653001901122100002001141700001901161856003001180       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aStrategies for a Small to Medium-sized Enterprise to Engage in an Existing Ecosystem0 aStrategies for a Small to Mediumsized Enterprise to Engage in an  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2021  a5-190 v113 aRecent advances in ecosystem theory prescribe that companies need to develop offers that are modular and form unique or supermodular complementarities with other offers. However, both academic and managerial knowledge of the strategies that especially small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) can use to engage in existing ecosystems for value creation remains scattered and predominantly vague. This article thus aims to explore applicable ecosystem engagement strategies from the perspective of SMEs, as discussed in previous scholarly literature. In so doing, the article puts forward and elaborates three distinct strategies that SMEs can apply to become part of value-creating ecosystems. In this way, the findings contribute to the literature on ecosystems.10aComplementarities10aecosystem10aengagement10aEntry10aSME10astrategy10avalue creation1 aBashuri, Ermela1 aBailetti, Tony  utimreview.ca/article/145301919nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245011300055210006900168260004200237300001000279490000700289520126900296653001401565653001301579653003301592653001801625653001901643100002101662856003001683       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aEcosystem Value Creation and Capture: A Systematic Review of Literature and Potential Research Opportunities0 aEcosystem Value Creation and Capture A Systematic Review of Lite  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2020  a16-340 v103 aCollaboration, co-creation, and competition are essential strategies for success in today’s modern businesses. In comparison with former ways of doing business in isolation, ecosystems nowadays have created ample opportunities for generating significantly more values. However, there are also potential threats in the pathway towards success in ecosystems. Ecosystem value creation and capture (EVCC) has recently gained significant attention in the academic literature of business and management. Yet, due to the complex structures of ecosystems and ambiguity in understanding value creation and capture in ecosystems, the contributions heretofore are fragmented, where scholars analysed different aspects of EVCC. The present study offers a systematic review of the literature to shed light on the EVCC studies. The content analysis of a fine-grained sample of articles relevant to EVCC revealed that despite the initiation of discussions in 2007, the topic did not gain noticeable attention until 2016. A 150% increase in the number of papers has since been observed. The paper contributes to the intersection of strategy and studies on EVCC by synthesizing existing knowledge, illuminating current EVCC research, and highlighting potential research avenues. 10aecosystem10astrategy10aSystematic literature review10avalue capture10avalue creation1 aKhademi, Behrooz  utimreview.ca/article/131101178nas a2200445   4500008004100000022001400041245003900055210003600094260004200130300000800172490000700180653000700187653002800194653001400222653001300236653003100249653002100280653002200301653001400323653001500337653001100352653001800363653002300381653001500404653001600419653003400435653002200469653002500491653001500516653001600531653001300547653003300560653001500593653001800608653001900626653001600645100001800661700002300679856003000702       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (January 2020)0 aEditorial Insights January 2020  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2020  a3-40 v1010aAI10aartificial intelligence10aB2B sales10abig data10abusiness-to-business sales10adata-based value10adigital solutions10aecosystem10aecosystems10aEthics10aGujarat State10aIndian IT industry10ainnovation10aIT clusters10aKnowledge Innovation clusters10aNetworks Analysis10aregional development10aRoboethics10aSmart robot10astrategy10aSystematic literature review10atechnology10avalue capture10avalue creation10avalue sales1 aTanev, Stoyan1 aSandstrom, Gregory  utimreview.ca/article/129802049nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245009100055210006900146260004200215300001000257490000600267520140000273653001401673653002501687653002801712653002801740653001601768100002101784856003801805       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Ecosystem Knowledge Explorer: A Tool to Systematically Discover External Knowledge0 aEcosystem Knowledge Explorer A Tool to Systematically Discover E  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2019  a28-400 v93 aIt is crucial for any organization to discover knowledge from ecosystem-specific sources of knowledge that are considered external to the organization. Since knowledge exploration is a resource-intensive task for organizations, untimely or excessive knowledge exploration have detrimental impacts on the innovativeness and competitiveness of organizations. The benefits of performance measurement and management tools for knowledge management in organizations have been known for many years now. Therefore, the application of similar tools in ecosystems may enable actors to have access to valuable external knowledge. However, there is a paucity of such tools in management scholarship. The purpose of this study is to bridge this gap by proposing a conceptual tool – the Ecosystem Knowledge (EK) Explorer, which generates insightful knowledge for ecosystem actors using codified technical knowledge (e.g., scientific publications and patents). Not only does the EK Explorer reduce the uncertainty and fuzziness of the knowledge exploration phase for ecosystem actors, it also enables them to save resources and have access to strategic knowledge regarding competition, collaboration, technology management, and policy making in ecosystems. Bibliometric analysis, social network analysis, and text mining were used to conceptualize the constructs and measurable variables of the EK Explorer. 10aecosystem10aknowledge management10aperformance measurement10asocial network analysis10atext mining1 aKhademi, Behrooz  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/125301492nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260004200214300000900256490000600265520080700271653001901078653001401097653002301111653000901134653002201143100002101165700001901186700002001205856003701225       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aValue Creation in the Internet of Things: Mapping Business Models and Ecosystem Roles0 aValue Creation in the Internet of Things Mapping Business Models  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2018  a5-150 v83 aThe increasing connectivity provided by the Internet of Things (IoT) supports novel business opportunities for actors in overlapping service systems. Therefore, the co-creative nature of IoT business needs to be further studied. This article reports an empirical study on a European IoT initiative. It contributes to the understudied area of IoT ecosystem dynamics by describing different actor roles and activities in the IoT use cases, and their implications for value creation in IoT ecosystems. Our findings show how IoT ecosystem actors may take the roles of ideator, designer, or intermediary in different IoT design layers, and we recommend this perspective to better understand and describe ecosystem business models. We also discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of our findings.10abusiness model10aecosystem10aInternet of Things10arole10avalue co-creation1 aIkävalko, Heini1 aTurkama, Petra1 aSmedlund, Anssi  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/114200934nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245007200055210006900127260004200196300000800238490000600246653001400252653002600266653001400292653002100306653002200327653002500349653001500374653002400389653001000413653001700423653004300440653001100483653003500494653001200529653002500541100001800566856003600584       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Australia (June 2016)0 aEditorial Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Australia June 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2014  a3-40 v610aAustralia10adesign-led innovation10aecosystem10aentrepreneurship10ahidden innovation10ahigh-growth startups10ainnovation10ainnovation catalyst10aISPIM10ajob creation10aNational Innovation and Science Agenda10apolicy10aregional innovation management10aregions10astrategic management1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/99101592nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245007500055210006900130260004200199300001000241490000600251520095600257653001401213653001501227653001301242653001701255653002201272653001701294100002601311856003701337       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Smart City Ecosystem as an Innovation Model: Lessons from Montreal0 aSmart City Ecosystem as an Innovation Model Lessons from Montrea  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2016  a26-310 v63 aInnovations are not confined to new technologies designed to improve the manufacturing processes of a product or the provision of a service. In a context of postmodernity, the new innovation paradigm calls on organizations to choose the best innovation strategies for their broader purposes. Today, such strategies usually involve adopting organizational structures that enable better collaboration with the stakeholders of an ecosystem. This article focuses on the smart city of Montreal – selected as the 2016 Intelligent Community of the Year by the Intelligent Community Forum – as a model of innovation. The aim is to understand the distinction between "the smart city" and "the smart destination", despite the omnipresence of tourism projects in smart city development plans. Among the key lessons are the importance of engaging tourism stakeholders and the role of a dedicated organization to develop and implement the city's unique vision.10aecosystem10ainnovation10aMontreal10asmart cities10asmart destination10astakeholders1 aKhomsi, Mohamed, Reda  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/103201817nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245011000055210006900165260004200234300001000276490000600286520103400292653002301326653001601349653002101365653001401386653002501400653002401425653002001449653002301469653001401492100002101506856003601527       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aBusiness, Innovation, and Knowledge Ecosystems: How They Differ and How to Survive and Thrive within Them0 aBusiness Innovation and Knowledge Ecosystems How They Differ and  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2015  a17-240 v53 aIn 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.10abusiness ecosystem10acommunities10aconceptual paper10aecosystem10ainnovation ecosystem10aknowledge ecosystem10alogic of action10aman-made ecosystem10aplatforms1 aValkokari, Katri  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/91902022nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245007800055210006900133260004200202300001000244490000600254520126800260653001901528653002601547653001601573653001501589653001401604653001001618653001401628653000801642653002301650653002901673100001801702856003601720       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Creativity Canvas: A Business Model for Knowledge and Idea Management0 aCreativity Canvas A Business Model for Knowledge and Idea Manage  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2015  a50-580 v53 aInnovation depends on ideas generated through creativity and the knowledge and research that make it possible to put ideas to work. However, these two activities are very dependent on the people who perform them. As demonstrated by a pilot project realized at Hydro-Québec’s research institute (IREQ), any approach that does not take this understanding into account is doomed to failure. This article proposes that what must be developed is a knowledge and idea management system designed as a coherent ecosystem that takes all controlling factors into account and is based on stakeholder interest and preferences. This ecosystem is the result of a meticulous design of each of the elements that must generally be taken into account in a business model. A business model approach includes not only developing a value proposition for knowledge and idea management that suits the target clientele but also a good understanding of the resources and activities required to deliver this value proposition and especially the ways to finance them. Key to the development of such an ecosystem is the creation of fully functional innovation communities, which are responsible for building up and nurturing their ideas and knowledge assets and getting value out of them.10abusiness model10abusiness model canvas10acommunities10acreativity10aecosystem10aideas10aknowledge10aR&D10aresearch institute10atechnological innovation1 aNaggar, Raouf  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/91402043nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245007700055210006900132260004200201300001000243490000600253520135200259653001801611653001401629653002701643653003001670653002201700100001801722700001701740700002001757856003601777       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Value Blueprint Approach to Cybersecurity in Networked Medical Devices0 aValue Blueprint Approach to Cybersecurity in Networked Medical D  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2015  a17-250 v53 aCybersecurity for networked medical devices has been usually “bolted on” by manufacturers at the end of the design cycle, rather than integrated as a key factor of the product development and value creation process. The recently released cybersecurity guidelines by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) offer an opportunity for manufacturers to find a way of positioning cybersecurity as part of front-end design, value creation, and market differentiation. However, the technological architecture and the functionality of such devices require an ecosystem approach to the value creation process. Thus, the present article adopts an ecosystem approach to including cybersecurity as part of their value proposition. It extends the value blueprint approach suggested by Ron Adner to include an additional dimension that offers the opportunity to define: the potential locations of cybersecurity issues within the ecosystem, the specific nature of these issues, the players that should be responsible for addressing them, as well as a way to articulate the added cybersecurity value as a competitive differentiator to potential customers. The value of the additional blueprint dimension is demonstrated through a case study of a representative networked medical device – a connected insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor. 10acybersecurity10aecosystem10amarket differentiation10anetworked medical devices10avalue proposition1 aTanev, George1 aTzolov, Peyo1 aApiafi, Rollins  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/90301475nas a2200301   4500008004100000022001400041245012800055210006900183260004200252300001000294490000600304520055700310653001900867653001400886653001500900653001500915653002500930653001500955653002700970653001400997653002501011653002001036100002301056700001801079700002301097700001701120856003601137       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aViability Radar: A Practical Tool for Assessing the Viability of Transformative Service Innovations in a Healthcare Context0 aViability Radar A Practical Tool for Assessing the Viability of   aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2015  a17-300 v53 aThis article develops and showcases the viability radar, which is designed to assess the innovation potential of transformative service ideas. Based on service research and innovation literature, we highlight the importance of novel simplifying technology, supporting value networks, cost-effective business models, and regulatory environments that enable the renewal of prevailing market practices. We operationalize the radar with a set of questions and assess the innovation potential of three pilot cases of new transformative healthcare services. 10abusiness model10aecosystem10ahealthcare10ainnovation10ainstitutionalization10atechnology10atransformative service10aviability10aviability assessment10aviability radar1 aHeikkilä, Marikka1 aSaarni, Jouni1 aKaartemo, Valtteri1 aKoponen, Aki  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/89502420nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245005700055210005700112260004200169300000900211490000600220520173600226653001901962653001601981653001401997653002302011653000802034653001002042653001702052100002102069700001902090700002102109856003602130       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aDesigning Business Models for the Internet of Things0 aDesigning Business Models for the Internet of Things  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2014  a5-140 v43 aThis article investigates challenges pertaining to business model design in the emerging context of the Internet of Things (IOT). The evolution of business perspectives to the IOT is driven by two underlying trends: i) the change of focus from viewing the IOT primarily as a technology platform to viewing it as a business ecosystem; and ii) the shift from focusing on the business model of a firm to designing ecosystem business models. An ecosystem business model is a business model composed of value pillars anchored in ecosystems and focuses on both the firm's method of creating and capturing value as well as any part of the ecosystem's method of creating and capturing value. The article highlights three major challenges of designing ecosystem business models for the IOT, including the diversity of objects, the immaturity of innovation, and the unstructured ecosystems. Diversity refers to the difficulty of designing business models for the IOT due to a multitude of different types of connected objects combined with only modest standardization of interfaces. Immaturity suggests that quintessential IOT technologies and innovations are not yet products and services but a "mess that runs deep". The unstructured ecosystems mean that it is too early to tell who the participants will be and which roles they will have in the evolving ecosystems. The study argues that managers can overcome these challenges by using a business model design tool that takes into account the ecosystemic nature of the IOT. The study concludes by proposing the grounds for a new design tool for ecosystem business models and suggesting that "value design" might be a more appropriate term when talking about business models in ecosystems.10abusiness model10adesign tool10aecosystem10aInternet of Things10aIOT10avalue10avalue design1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aRajahonka, Mervi  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/80700593nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245005800055210005500113260004200168300001000210490000600220653001400226653002100240653001500261653001000276653002800286653002100314100001600335856003600351       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. What is the Future of Entrepreneurship in India?0 aQA What is the Future of Entrepreneurship in India  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2014  a46-490 v410aecosystem10aentrepreneurship10aincubators10aIndia10asocial entrepreneurship10asupport agencies1 aDubey, Ritu  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/82201339nas a2200205   4500008003900000022001400039245005800053210005800111260004200169300001000211490000600221520076700227653001600994653001201010653001401022653001701036653002501053100001901078856003601097       2011                          d  a1927-032100aEconomics of Software Product Development Collectives0 aEconomics of Software Product Development Collectives  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2011  a13-180 v13 aWhere software product development occurs is shifting from single companies to groups or collectives of companies. In this article, we retrace the evolution of how software product development is organized and then offer insights into the economic motivation for collectives, which will be relevant to companies considering joining a software product development collective. Building on the literature on software product line economics, we identify three factors affecting the economics of collectives (level of contribution, number of members, and diversity of use), and develop a model that links those factors to three economic outcomes (time, quality, and cost). This model can be used by potential members when deciding whether or not to join a collective.10acollectives10aeclipse10aecosystem10aproduct line10asoftware development1 aWeiss, Michael  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/488