02261nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245007200055210006900127260004200196300001000238490000700248520159900255653001501854653002001869653001501889653001701904653002201921653001901943100001901962700002001981856003002001       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aFraming Multi-Stakeholder Value Propositions: A wicked problem lens0 aFraming MultiStakeholder Value Propositions A wicked problem len  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2021  a26-370 v113 aBalancing various stakeholder (often contradictory) expectations creates tensions when developing value propositions for a new firm. Customers, funders, owners, and society-at-large often expect different value outcomes from a firm. They therefore have different motivations for being involved in the firm. These differences in value expectations are more strongly expressed in technology-based ventures, which often rely heavily on access to heterogeneous external resources such as capital, specialised knowledge, distribution, and service. In this paper, we use a wicked problem lens to explore specific challenges for companies to mediate seemingly contradictory propositions. We use two dimensions of wicked problems involving complexity and complicatedness, and conduct a secondary analysis of seven technology venture case studies from Australia and New Zealand. We then categorise the configuration types of these firms' stakeholder value propositions in the context of their scale-up process. We contribute to the value proposition and business model development research streams by suggesting that the challenge of mediating value propositions that conflict can manifest itself in four types of configurations: easy, complicated, complex and wicked. Complicated and complex propositions are thorny, but with structures and processes in place, they can be adequately addressed. On the other hand, wicked propositions consist of many unknowns and require firms to collaborate with stakeholders to derive outcomes that align company scaling objective with stakeholder value propositions.10acomplexity10acomplicatedness10ascaling-up10astakeholders10avalue proposition10awicked problem1 aOoi, Yat, Ming1 aHusted, Kenneth  utimreview.ca/article/143401242nas a2200433   4500008004100000022001400041245004300055210004000098260004200138300000600180490000700186653001900193653002200212653001500234653002400249653001500273653001500288653001500303653002600318653001400344653002200358653001900380653003200399653002900431653001000460653002300470653002100493653002700514653001700541653002400558653002900582653003300611653002600644653004500670653002200715100001800737700002300755856003000778       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: ISPIM Bangkok (August 2020)0 aEditorial ISPIM Bangkok August 2020  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2020  a30 v1010aBasic research10abiotech startups.10aco-working10aConceptual research10adisruption10aincubators10ainnovation10aIntegrative marketing10ainvestors10aknowledge-sharing10aOpen marketing10aorganizational capabilities10aPharmaceutical companies10aroles10aservice ecosystems10aservice entities10aservice-dominant logic10astakeholders10astrategic marketing10astrategy-innovation link10astructured literature review10atriadic relationships10aUniversity and Public research institute10avalue co-creation1 aTanev, Stoyan1 aSandstrom, Gregory  utimreview.ca/article/138001792nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245006900055210006600124260004200190300001000232490000700242520099200249653001501241653001501256653001401271653002201285653002301307653002101330653002701351653001701378653002701395653002201422100002001444700002001464856003001484       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Triadic Actor View of Value Co-creation in Business Incubation0 aTriadic Actor View of Value Cocreation in Business Incubation  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2020  a27-370 v103 aIn this paper we view an incubator as a service entity that may take different forms. We contribute to the literature by exploring the utility of the service-dominant logic (SDL) paradigm (Vargo &amp; Lusch, 2016) to better understand incubation operations. Value co-creation is a central axiom of SDL, as is engagement with a supporting service ecosystem. Whilst some studies have considered dyadic incubator-client value creation arrangements, we extend this to include interaction with other service ecosystem stakeholders that we characterise as investors. This way a triadic interaction model is presented. We consider four different cases of a service entity supporting start-up development from this actor-oriented perspective. Adopting a client company perspective, we draw a parallel between various kinds of incubation services and department stores, where clients may access what they need when they need it from a variety of offerings, and obtain the assistance they require.10aco-working10aincubators10ainvestors10aknowledge-sharing10aservice ecosystems10aservice entities10aservice-dominant logic10astakeholders10atriadic relationships.10avalue co-creation1 aBeckett, Ronald1 aDalrymple, John  utimreview.ca/article/137800860nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245004000055210003700095260004200132300000800174490000600182653001700188653002000205653001500225653001500240653001600255653002000271653001700291653001900308653001000327653003700337653002200374100001800396700002300414700002800437700002200465700002100487856003800508       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs (March 2019)0 aEditorial Living Labs March 2019  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2019  a3-50 v910aaccelerators10abusiness models10aframeworks10ainnovation10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10astakeholders10asustainability10atools10aUN Sustainable Development Goals10aurban living labs1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul1 aRunardotter, Mari1 aChronéer, Diana  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122000813nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245003500055210003200090260004200122300000800164490000600172653002000178653001600198653001300214653002100227653001700248653001500265653002500280653002500305653001600330653001300346653001800359653001700377653001000394653002300404653001700427100001800444856003700462       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (May 2018)0 aEditorial Insights May 2018  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2018  a3-40 v810abusiness models10aco-creation10adrop out10aentrepreneurship10afacilitation10ainnovation10ainternationalization10alean global startups10aliving labs10aservices10aservitization10astakeholders10ausers10avalue propositions10avalue-in-use1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/115400796nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245005700055210005400112260004200166300000800208490000600216653002700222653001500249653001500264653001800279653002100297653001400318653001700332653001300349653001300362653001500375653001900390100001800409700002100427700002100448856003700469       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Platforms and Ecosystems (September 2017)0 aEditorial Platforms and Ecosystems September 2017  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2017  a3-50 v710adigital transformation10aecosystems10ainnovation10aorchestrators10aplatform economy10aplatforms10astakeholders10astartups10astrategy10atechnology10avalue creation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aDedehayir, Ozgur1 aSeppänen, Marko  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/110101592nas 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/103201933nas 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/87300816nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245007000055210006700125260004200192300000800234490000600242653001400248653002100262653002300283653001000306653001500316653002200331653001100353653002300364653001700387653001300404653001600417653001500433100001800448700002400466856003600490       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in India (August 2014)0 aEditorial Innovation and Entrepreneurship in India August 2014  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2014  a3-40 v410aeducation10aentrepreneurship10agovernment support10aIndia10ainnovation10aknowledge systems10apolicy10aservice innovation10astakeholders10astartups10auncertainty10auniversity1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aGuin, Kalyan, Kumar  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/81601555nas 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/821