@article {1270,
	title = {Editorial: Celebrating Innovation in Florence (October 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {10/2019},
	pages = {3-4},
	chapter = {3},
	keywords = {behavioural economics, behavioural science, bibliometric analysis, business models, Buyer-Supplier Relationships, choice architecture, collaboration, consumer-to-business, Content creator-based business models, content creators, creativity management, digital platforms, digital technologies, digital transformation, Digital user involvement, digitalization, digitization, disruption, e-commerce, human-centered data economy, IIoT, Industry 4.0, innovation, innovation policy, intellectual commerce, Living lab, mission-led science, multisided platforms, personal data, research impact, social commerce, Supplier Integration, taxonomy, user-generated content},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev and Gregory Sandstrom}
}
@article {1275,
	title = {Giving Science Innovation Systems a {\textquoteright}Nudge{\textquoteright}},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {10/2019},
	pages = {51-61},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {51},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article we consider the role that contextual factors play in science innovation systems \&ndash; that is, the choice architecture, that influences the orientation and outcomes of publicly-funded research. More specifically, we examine how choice architects, particularly policymakers and funding administrators, can affect the decision-making behaviour of researchers. The context for today\&rsquo;s science innovation systems continues to shift as governments seek solutions to the world\&rsquo;s \&ldquo;grand societal challenges\&rdquo;, such as climate change and ageing populations, in addition to greater and more demonstrable impact from funded research. This means that the assumptions of \&ldquo;basic research [being] performed without thought of practical ends\&rdquo; (Bush, 1945) that have shaped such projects, actually run counter to the growing expectations of greater commercialisation and use of multidisciplinary mission-led approaches. We argue that a closer examination of the choice architecture for publicly-funded research is required to understand and address how these potentially conflicting objectives may be pursued most productively through interventions that could form the basis of a novel, behaviourally-based toolkit for science innovation policy.},
	keywords = {behavioural economics, behavioural science, choice architecture, innovation policy, mission-led science, research impact.},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1275},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1275},
	author = {Kirsty de Jong and Urs Daellenbach and Sally Davenport and Jarrod Haar and Shirley Leitch}
}
@article {1163,
	title = {From Organizations to Organizational Fields: The Evolution of Civic Innovation Ecosystems},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {06/2018},
	pages = {34-47},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Contemporary approaches to urban technology emphasize local {\textquotedblleft}innovation ecosystems{\textquotedblright}. Two organizational models {\textendash} living labs and innovation integrators {\textendash} are commonly used as hubs to broker these ecosystems. Curiously, both coexist in some cities, allowing a comparison of their impact and an analysis of their development over time and in context. The case studies presented in this article suggest that our analytical frameworks for technology policy may fall short, in that they contemplate only the organizations themselves {\textendash} the living labs or innovation integrators. The dynamics observed in each city are well articulated, however, in the sociotechnical systems literature. The hub can be understood as a {\textquotedblleft}niche{\textquotedblright}, which fosters radical innovations and new processes. As these prototypes are increasingly deployed and accepted, there is a regime shift, ultimately creating an experimentalist culture that fills the role previously held by the hub. This conclusion is neither a challenge to ecosystem theory nor a critique of innovation policy and its implementation. Rather, I suggest that we must extend these theoretical frameworks, drawing on sociotechnical systems literature to better account for institutions and for systems change as we design policy for urban technology. This article therefore makes a contribution by using a sociotechnical systems lens to explain the evolution of local urban innovation ecosystems.},
	keywords = {city, civic technology, innovation policy, innovation systems, Living lab},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = { http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1163},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1163},
	author = {Matthew Claudel}
}
