@article {1278,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (November 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {11/2019},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {3},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {artificial intelligence, competitive advantage, cybersecurity, deep learning, Deepfake, design rules, digitalization, entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial university, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, fake news, innovation, international entrepreneurship, leadership, Learning Capabilities, marketing, motivation, new venture teams, quadruple helix, sanctions, SMEs, teamwork, triple helix, university business incubation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1278},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1278},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev and Gregory Sandstrom}
}
@article {1280,
	title = {A University Business School as an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Hub},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {11/2019},
	pages = {15-25},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {15},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article assesses the progress of a business school toward achieving the status of an entrepreneurial ecosystem hub with emphasis on the components related to entrepreneurial universities, entrepreneurship education, university business incubators, and university-enterprise-government-civil society collaboration. The objective of a business school serving as an entrepreneurial ecosystem hub, is to stimulate economic development, generate employment, and create innovative technology-based ventures or service businesses. These components are discussed from theoretical and practical viewpoints in order to provide greater understanding of the concepts. An insider action research assessment of the university-affiliated business school was conducted to gauge the progress made in building an embryonic entrepreneurial ecosystem centered upon a business school as a hub. Emphasis is placed on the need to develop strong collaboration among key stakeholders for achieving success in building an effective entrepreneurial ecosystem based on a quadruple helix system, consistent with the lead-in quotation to the article.},
	keywords = {entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial university, entrepreneurship education, quadruple helix, triple helix, university business incubation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1280},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1280},
	author = {Haven Allahar and Ron Sookram}
}
@article {1203,
	title = {Exploring the Use of Stakeholder Analysis Methodology in the Establishment of a Living Lab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {26-39},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article explores how to conduct a cost-effective stakeholder analysis to investigate opportunities and interest in establishing a living lab for an autonomous ferry connection. Using an action research approach, we share our experiences with the process and results, and we reflect openly on the strengths and weaknesses of both the stakeholder methodology generally as well as our own implementation specifically. According to the cyclic nature of action research and experiential learning, the research was conducted in two iterations, with the second iteration drawing upon input from the first. We compare and discuss these two approaches in terms of costs and benefits from a practitioner{\textquoteright}s perspective. The article provides a contribution to stakeholder analysis methodology for complex, multi-stakeholder innovation initiatives, such as living labs.},
	keywords = {action research, autonomous vessels, living labs, management, maritime, Open innovation, quadruple helix, stakeholder analysis},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1203},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1203},
	author = {Marius Imset and Per Haavardtun and Marius Stian Tannum}
}
@article {993,
	title = {All Australian Regions Are Not Born Equal: Understanding the Regional Innovation Management Sandpit},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {06/2016},
	pages = {11-23},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we highlight and challenge an overly simplistic assessment of regions and regional innovation systems in Australia. Treating each region and place as equal and prescribing blanket policy is anathema to the reality. Having argued that places are not equivalent, we then move on to highlight that commonalities at a deeper institutional level are possible. We draw on fieldwork and ongoing action research from the Australian regions of Hunter and Central Coast (New South Wales) and Northern Tasmania. Results of the theory and case work have been instrumental in the development of 11 structural attributes of a regional innovation management (RIM) sandpit framework. The framework provides attributes but also important process insights related to regional programs, enterprise development, and project innovations. Although developing from the Australian context, we expect that the RIM Sandpit and its place-based insights can be generalized to other regions around the world.},
	keywords = {action research, constructed advantage, phronesis, pivot, quadruple helix, regional innovation management sandpit, RIS3, smart specialization, strategic management, triple helix},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/993},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/993},
	author = {Anton Kriz and Courtney Molloy and Alexandra Kriz and Sabrina Sonntag}
}
@article {932,
	title = {Making Smart Regions Smarter: Smart Specialization and the Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {10/2015},
	pages = {7-15},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {What makes a "smart region" smarter? We argue that it is the active orchestration of the regional ecosystem around concepts such as knowledge co-creation and exploitation, opportunity exploration, and capacity building. Simply adding to the proliferation of software developers in the area, stimulating the activities of business clusters around information technology, and providing digitally enabled services for citizens is not enough to make a region smarter. Smartness is enhanced by a well-orchestrated regional innovation ecosystem with a strong "smart specialization strategy" that leverages the new societal roles played by universities. In this article, we describe the European Commission{\textquoteright}s program for research and innovation strategies for smart specialization (RIS3) and show how the Helsinki Region in Finland is using smart specialization, ecosystem orchestration, and the active role of universities to enhance regional innovation and the "smartness" of the region. These activities are discussed in the context of policy documents and strategy papers from regional, national, and European authorities, which illustrates some differences between papers and practice. This is work in progress, and based on early results, we draw initial conclusions about how putting policy into practice can make smart regions smarter.},
	keywords = {innovation, innovation ecosystems, quadruple helix, role of universities, smart cities, smart regions, smart specialisation, smart specialization, societal innovation, triple helix},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/932},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/932},
	author = {Markku Markkula and Hank Kune}
}
