01726nas a2200649   4500008004100000022001400041245003600055210003300091260004200124300000800166490000700174653001200181653001500193653001700208653001800225653002100243653002600264653003400290653003000324653002800354653002100382653001300403653002300416653001200439653000900451653000800460653001500468653003300483653002500516653001600541653001700557653002000574653001700594653002200611653001600633653003500649653001500684653002600699653001500725653002000740653001400760653000800774653000800782653001900790653003000809653001500839653002500854653001900879653001600898653001700914653002200931653003200953653002000985100001801005700002301023856003001046       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (June 2020)0 aEditorial Insights June 2020  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2020  a3-40 v1010aBitcoin10ablockchain10acrowdfunding10acrypto assets10acryptocurrencies10adeveloping countries.10adistributed ledger technology10aEmployeedriven innovation10aentrepreneurial finance10aentrepreneurship10aEthereum10aFinancial industry10aFinTech10aICOs10aIEO10ainnovation10aintellectual property rights10ainternationalization10aIT industry10ajob autonomy10amining industry10amoral hazard10aneed for autonomy10anew company10aPorter's Five Forces framework10aregulation10ascaling company value10ascaling-up10aself-leadership10asignaling10aSME10aSTO10asustainability10atechnological environment10atechnology10atechnology readiness10atoken offering10atoken sales10atokenization10avalue proposition10avalue proposition alignment10aventure capital1 aTanev, Stoyan1 aSandstrom, Gregory  utimreview.ca/article/136302363nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245013300055210006900188260004200257300001000299490000700309520158700316653002501903653001601928653002001944653003501964653001501999100002002014700001702034700002002051700002002071856003002091       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aIs Porter's Five Forces Framework Still Relevant? A study of the capital/labour intensity continuum via mining and IT industries0 aPorters Five Forces Framework Still Relevant A study of the capi  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2020  a28-410 v103 aPorter's Five Forces (P5F) framework, published in 1979, helps us to understand the attractiveness of an industry. The five competitive forces are: the threat of new entrants, the bargaining power of buyers, the bargaining power of suppliers, the threat of substitute products of services, and the rivalry among existing competitors. This framework has recently come under scrutiny and been called into question. To contribute to the debate, this paper investigates the relevance of Porter's framework by contrasting vastly different industries. The use cases consist of a resource-based, capital-intensive industry, the mining industry, and a knowledge-based, labor-intensive industry, the information technology industry. Drawing from research on Porter's Five Forces framework, and through an internationalization lens, the paper proposes a modified framework augmented with four additional forces. These additional forces are: the competitor's level of innovativeness, exposure to globalization, threat of digitalization, and industry exposure to de/regulation activities. These forces were added to capture the increased interconnectivity and complexity of businesses operating in the 21st century. The paper contributes to this body of knowledge by augmenting a popular framework and applying it to vital industrial sectors. The findings aim to incite researchers, managers, entrepreneurs and policymakers to go beyond the traditional five forces as a way to help monitor their business environment and enhance decision-making processes, particularly in a post-COVID-19 world.10ainternationalization10aIT industry10amining industry10aPorter's Five Forces framework10aregulation1 aIsabelle, Diane1 aHorak, Kevin1 aMcKinnon, Sarah1 aPalumbo, Chiara  utimreview.ca/article/136601419nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245007900055210006900134260004200203300001000245490000600255520066500261653002100926653001500947653001800962653001700980653002500997653001501022653000801037653001501045653002001060100002001080700001601100856003701116       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aInclusive Innovation in Biohacker Spaces: The Role of Systems and Networks0 aInclusive Innovation in Biohacker Spaces The Role of Systems and  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2018  a27-370 v83 aIn this article, we examine the development of biohacker spaces and their impact on innovation systems through the lens of inclusive innovation. Examining issues associated with people, activities, outcomes, and governance, we observe that biohacker spaces offer an alternative approach to biotechnological research outside the orthodox walls of academia, industry, and government. We explain that harnessing the full innovative potential of these spaces depends on flexible legal and regulatory systems, including appropriate biosafety regulations and intellectual property policies and practices, and organic, community-based social and financial networking.10abiohacker spaces10abiohacking10abiotechnology10acrowdfunding10ainclusive innovation10ainnovation10alaw10aregulation10asocial networks1 ade Beer, Jeremy1 aJain, Vipal  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/113702332nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008600055210006900141260004200210300001000252490000600262520153500268653001301803653001601816653003101832653001501863653002801878653001401906653001901920653001501939653001501954653001401969100001801983700001702001856003602018       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aCybersecurity Capability Maturity Models for Providers of Critical Infrastructure0 aCybersecurity Capability Maturity Models for Providers of Critic  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2014  a33-390 v43 aCritical 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. 10aadoption10abersecurity10acapability maturity models10acompliance10acritical infrastructure10aframework10amunicipalities10aprotection10aregulation10astandards1 aMiron, Walter1 aMuita, Kevin  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/83702130nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245006300055210006100118260004200179300000900221490000600230520146700236653001801703653002701721653002201748653001901770653001601789653001501805653002501820100001901845856003601864       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aCybersecurity Futures: How Can We Regulate Emergent Risks?0 aCybersecurity Futures How Can We Regulate Emergent Risks  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2013  a6-110 v33 aThis article reviews nine socio-technical trends that are likely to shape the cybersecurity environment over the next decade. These nine trends have reached various levels of maturity, and some – such as quantum computing – are still theoretically contentious. These trends are: cloud computing; big data; the Internet of Things; the mobile Internet; brain–computer interfaces; near field communication payment systems; mobile robots; quantum computing; and the militarization of the Internet.

What these nine trends have in common is that they will be instrumental in generating new opportunities for offending, which will result from an exponential increase in the quantity of data, number of connection points to the Internet, and velocity of data flows that irrigate the digital ecosystem. As a result, more opportunities for malicious exploitation will be available to attackers, “security by design” will be harder to achieve in such a fluid and dynamic environment, and the performance of control mechanisms is likely to erode significantly. 

Technical solutions to address these challenges are already being developed by computer scientists. This article focuses on a different and complementary approach, finding inspiration in the work of regulatory scholars who have framed promising theories such as regulatory pluralism and responsive regulation to explore options for the necessary institutional adaptation to these future changes. 10acybersecurity10acybersecurity policies10adigital ecosystem10aemerging risks10aforecasting10aregulation10atechnological trends1 aDupont, Benoit  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/700