02147nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245013000055210006900185260004200254300000900296490000600305520127500311653002301586653001801609653003101627653002501658653003601683653002401719653002101743653001401764653001301778100002001791700003201811856003801843       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aCollaboration Strategies in Innovation Ecosystems: An Empirical Study of the German Microelectronics and Photonics Industries0 aCollaboration Strategies in Innovation Ecosystems An Empirical S  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2018  a4-120 v83 aEffective collaboration between companies and research organizations is key to successful innovation systems. Against the background of digitalization, a shift from traditional innovation systems towards innovation ecosystems can be observed. In this article, we investigate how companies operating in innovation ecosystems address the challenge of collaboration in dynamic innovation ecosystems. We focus on microelectronics and photonics in Germany as examples of knowledge- and research-intensive industries and analyze the strategies of companies to collaborate with research organizations. We explore whether and to what extent companies develop different and new strategies for collaborating with research institutions within innovation ecosystems, on the basis of which we identify two ideal types of strategies. Whereas ideal type A is aiming towards obtaining specific knowledge in order to further develop a particular technology or product (i.e., towards incremental innovation), ideal type B seeks to harness the new and full potential of innovation ecosystems (i.e., aiming at rather radical innovation). Finally, our findings contribute to a better understanding of innovation ecosystems and give managerial implications for collaborating in such systems. 10abusiness ecosystem10acollaboration10adevelopment and innovation10ainnovation ecosystem10ainnovation ecosystem strategies10aknowledge ecosystem10amicroelectronics10aphotonics10aresearch1 aSchroth, Fabian1 aHäußermann, Johann, Jakob  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/119500740nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245010500055210006900160260004200229300001000271490000600281653001500287653002300302653003000325653002500355653001200380653001300392653002800405100001800433700002200451856003700473       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research: Where Are We Now and How Do We Move Forward?0 aQA Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Where Are W  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2018  a52-570 v810aapproaches10abusiness ecosystem10aentrepreneurial ecosystem10ainnovation ecosystem10amethods10aresearch10atheoretical foundations1 aRitala, Paavo1 aGustafsson, Robin  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/117101998nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245008100055210006900136260004200205300001000247490000600257520135500263653002501618653001501643653001201658653001301670653001801683100002101701700002101722856003701743       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aManaging Innovation Ecosystems to Create and Capture Value in ICT Industries0 aManaging Innovation Ecosystems to Create and Capture Value in IC  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2016  a17-240 v63 aIn a new knowledge-intensive economic landscape, firms need to access external knowledge sources due to their inability to generate all necessary knowledge on their own. The interaction with and learning from external knowledge sources implies that firms depend upon decisions and actions made by business partners and external support organizations. This network of linkages can be considered as an ecosystem in which commercial enterprises and non-firm organizations interact with one another and work together to create and capture value. Previous studies have shown that a firm’s ability to successfully commercialize a new product depends not only on its own technology strategy but also its capabilities to manage an innovation ecosystem strategy. Dynamic markets, intense competition, and shorter product lifecycles force companies across different industries to create and capture value more rapidly by launching new innovations. Well-defined and executed innovation ecosystem strategies can help companies to develop new markets and business opportunities for the different types of innovations and enable their businesses to grow. This study provides new insight into how an ecosystem strategy can be formed based on the traditional strategy literature and proposes a conceptual framework for senior leaders to form an ecosystem strategy.10ainnovation ecosystem10amanagement10anetwork10astrategy10avalue capture1 aPellikka, Jarkko1 aAli-Vehmas, Timo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/102401775nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245010400055210006900159260004200228300000900270490000600279520107000285653001401355653002501369653001501394653001801409653000801427653003301435653002001468100002001488856003701508       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aProfiling Regional Innovation Ecosystems as Functional Collaborative Systems: The Case of Cambridge0 aProfiling Regional Innovation Ecosystems as Functional Collabora  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2016  a6-250 v63 aIt has been widely recognized that the national and regional development of innovation ecosystems has been a relatively successful model for regional revitalization, bringing together key actors to perform the relevant technology-driven development processes. The ecosystems have been organized and combine readily public sector interests with private sector business-oriented actions. However, all regions are not uniformly successful, which leaves open the question of how to guide the sub-optimum regional systems closer to the front-runner position. Why do some score better than the others? This article presents both theoretical and practical evidence of global best practice in developing regional innovation hubs and renders a fully integrated innovation hub framework that defines a novel, holistic approach to managing these ecosystems. The framework is tested and validated through a selected case study of Cambridge, United Kingdom, identifying the key ecosystem elements that are necessary for building up a solid foundation for the innovative regions.10aCambridge10ainnovation ecosystem10amanagement10aorchestration10aPPP10apublic–private partnership10asystem thinking1 aViitanen, Jukka  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/103801817nas 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/91902007nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245011900055210006900174260004200243300001000285490000600295520127700301653001601578653002501594653001801619653002201637653002201659100001801681700001701699700002501716856003601741       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aContextuality and Co-Creation Matter: A Qualitative Case Study Comparison of Living Lab Concepts in Urban Research0 aContextuality and CoCreation Matter A Qualitative Case Study Com  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a48-550 v53 aInnovation development is key to transforming a product-based economy into an innovative service economy by integrating users as co-creators in real-life environments. User co-creation and user involvement are key elements in living labs. Urban living labs add not only the urban component to the conceptual design, but also societal, political, and technological questions. Fields of analysis in urban research relate to socio-spatial environment, living together, and urban policies. The leading question of this article is: to what extent can urban living labs be used as an instrument to support these fields of investigation? Comparing three different approaches for urban living labs, ranging from socially-centred to more technology-centred, we offer a more nuanced understanding of urban living lab design in diverging research contexts. All three case studies manage to go beyond testing and improving new products, which is normally the aim of existing living labs, by embedding innovation in appropriate social, structural, and institutional frameworks, and targeting civil society involvement. The community benefits from this case study comparison because it contextualizes living labs as research methodology to be applied in future urban research projects. 10aco-creation10ainnovation ecosystem10aparticipation10asocial innovation10aurban living labs1 aFranz, Yvonne1 aTausz, Karin1 aThiel, Sarah-Kristin  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95200928nas a2200325   4500008004100000022001400041245005500055210005200110260004200162300000800204490000600212653001800218653001500236653002500251653002400276653001600300653002000316653002400336653001700360653001800377653002500395653002500420653001900445653002300464100001800487700002100505700001900526700002100545856003600566       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Smart Cities and Regions (October 2015)0 aEditorial Smart Cities and Regions October 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2015  a3-60 v510acollaboration10aecosystems10ainnovation ecosystem10aliving laboratories10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aregional innovation10asmart cities10asmart regions10asmart specialisation10asmart specialization10asustainability10aurban capabilities1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aTukiainen, Taina1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/93101933nas a2200373   4500008004100000022001400041245009400055210006900149260004200218300001000260490000600270520083100276653001201107653002201119653002701141653001501168653002501183653001201208653002801220653002301248653002001271653001701291653001801308653002401326100002301350700001501373700001901388700002201407700002201429700002601451700002401477700002201501856003601523       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aPersonal Health Systems Technologies: Critical Issues in Service Innovation and Diffusion0 aPersonal Health Systems Technologies Critical Issues in Service   aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2015  a46-570 v53 aPersonal health system (PHS) technologies can enhance public and private health service delivery and provide new business opportunities in Europe and around the world. Although much PHS technology has already been developed and could potentially provide virtually everyone with access to personalized healthcare, research driven primarily by a technology push may fail, because it fails to situate PHS within the wider health and social care service systems. In this article, we explore the scattered PHS research and innovation landscape, as well its relevant markets, using several types of analyses: bibliometrics, patent analysis, social network analysis, stakeholder workshops, and interviews. Our analyses aim to identify critical issues in the development and implementation of service systems around PHS technologies. 10aehealth10aforesight studies10ahealth and social care10ahealthcare10ainnovation ecosystem10amhealth10apersonal health systems10aservice innovation10aservice systems10astakeholders10asystem design10atechnology adoption1 aSchartinger, Doris1 aMiles, Ian1 aSaritas, Ozcan1 aAmanatidou, Effie1 aGiesecke, Susanne1 aHeller-Schuh, Barbara1 aPombo-Juarez, Laura1 aSchreier, Günter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/87301536nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245007800055210006900133260004200202300001000244490000600254520088000260653001501140653002501155653001901180653002701199653001501226100001901241700002201260856003601282       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aSustainable Innovation: A Competitive Advantage for Innovation Ecosystems0 aSustainable Innovation A Competitive Advantage for Innovation Ec  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2015  a24-300 v53 aIn this article, we elaborate the emerging concept of sustainable innovation and analyze the relevance of innovation as a means to solve wicked problems and enhancing sustainable well-being. We also examine the changing conditions for innovation creation: building global knowledge hubs and local innovation ecosystems. As a result, the drivers of innovation and opportunities to utilize the untapped innovation potential of people outside traditional innovation contexts are expanded and diversified. Ultimately, the success of sustainable innovation constitutes its impact on the well-being of people and vice versa: sustainable well-being is an important source of innovation and growth. The article adds to the conceptual development of sustainable innovation and its motivation, which lies in combining competitiveness, the well-being of people, and inclusive solutions.10ainnovation10ainnovation ecosystem10asustainability10asustainable innovation10awell-being1 aOksanen, Kaisa1 aHautamäki, Antti  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/93401773nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245011900055210006900174260004200243300001000285490000600295520106500301653002001366653002101386653001501407653001001422653001501432653002501447653001101472100002401483856003601507       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Government of India's Role in Promoting Innovation through Policy Initiatives for Entrepreneurship Development0 aGovernment of Indias Role in Promoting Innovation through Policy  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2014  a11-170 v43 aIn spite of having a large publicly funded science and technology infrastructure and a sizeable education base, India has not been able to realize its innovative potential due to a fragmented innovation ecosystem. The government of India has taken many initiatives towards strengthening the innovation ecosystem, the most important of which are: i) the establishment of the National Innovation Council, whose mandate is to coordinate various innovation-related activities, and ii) the new Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013, which is intended to promote entrepreneurship and science-led solutions for sustainable and inclusive growth. With a focus on this new policy initiative, this article describes the current innovation ecosystem and the challenges it faces, and it discusses the efforts made by the government towards the promotion of innovation for entrepreneurship development and sustainable growth. With the implementation of this new policy the early indications are that India is poised to take a big leap towards innovation-led growth.10aeconomic growth10aentrepreneurship10agovernment10aIndia10ainnovation10ainnovation ecosystem10apolicy1 aAbhyankar, Ravindra  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/81801555nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245011900055210006900174260004200243300001000285490000600295520067200301653002100973653001500994653003401009653001301043653002501056653002201081653002201103653001101125653001701136653001501153100001901168700001801187700002401205856003601229       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aReviewing the Knowledge Systems of Innovation and the Associated Roles of Major Stakeholders in the Indian Context0 aReviewing the Knowledge Systems of Innovation and the Associated  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2014  a36-450 v43 aIn this article, we review various models of knowledge systems and discusses the relationships between various component stakeholders of innovation, namely higher-education institutions, industry, and government. The article uses India as a case study to examine new challenges and opportunities facing its innovation ecosystem. Within this context, we review existing models of knowledge systems through an innovative representation exemplifying the knowledge landscape and the model positioning. We argue for a reinforcing role of major stakeholders in the proliferation of innovation and entrepreneurship, and the need to promote healthy interactions between them.10aentrepreneurship10agovernment10ahigher-education institutions10aindustry10ainnovation ecosystem10ainnovation system10aknowledge systems10amodels10astakeholders10auniversity1 aSaurabh, Punit1 aBhola, Prabha1 aGuin, Kalyan, Kumar  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/82101859nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260004200214300000900256490000600265520112900271653001601400653002501416653001501441653002001456653002101476100002101497700002301518700001901541700002101560856003601581       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aLinking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework0 aLinking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes Towards a   aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2013  a6-150 v33 aDespite almost a decade of living lab activity all over Europe, there still is a lack of empirical research into the practical implementation and the related outcomes of living labs. Therefore, this article proposes a framework to create a better understanding of the characteristics and outcomes of living labs. We investigate three living labs in Belgium and one in Finland to learn how the different building blocks of living lab environments contribute to the outputs of innovation projects launched within the lab. The findings imply that managers and researchers contemplating innovation in living labs need to consider the intended inputs and outcomes, and reframe their innovation activities accordingly. We formulate practical guidelines on how living labs should be managed on the levels of community interaction, stakeholder engagement, and methodological setup to succeed in implementing living lab projects and to create user-centred innovations. That way, living lab practitioners can work towards a more sustainable way of setting up living labs that can run innovation projects over a longer period of time. 10aco-creation10ainnovation ecosystem10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10auser involvement1 aVeeckman, Carina1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/74800707nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245009700055210006900152260004200221300001000263490000600273653001300279653002200292653001500314653002500329653001600354653001100370653001900381653001800400100002300418856003600441       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. What Are the Components of Canada's Innovation Ecosystem and How Well Is it Performing?0 aQA What Are the Components of Canadas Innovation Ecosystem and H  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2013  a38-410 v310aacademia10acommercialization10ainnovation10ainnovation ecosystem10aperformance10apolicy10aprivate sector10apublic sector1 aWatters, David, B.  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/727