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/117102826nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245008500055210006900140260004200209300001000251490000600261520189600267653002302163653002102186653002302207653001602230653001402246653002202260653002902282653002702311653001702338653001902355100001802374700001802392700001802410700002202428700002502450856003702475       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities0 aCuckoo s Nest Approach for CoCreating Business Ecosystems in Sma  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2016  a26-370 v63 aThe development of business ecosystems in smart cities is currently hampered by the absence of established approaches for facilitating long-term value and sustainability. In our view, the underlying reason is the lack of collective action involving various organizations in the design process. Collective action for the good of the whole ecosystem does not take place in existing participatory practices because of the dominating role of a single customer or designer organization (in urban development projects typically the owner-developer or lead architect), who uses their bargaining and decision-making power over others. This leads to sub-optimal behaviour where the system is optimized for the goals of one strong organization instead of collectively developed system-level goals of the business ecosystem as a whole. The Cuckoo’s Nest approach addresses this problem by inviting various expert organizations to design the system and assigning each organization design rights for the ecosystem and its system-level goal. The Cuckoo’s Nest approach enhances collective action among the organizations by making individuals from various organizations consider the interests, goals, objectives, and value-adding elements of other organizations – not just those of their own organizations. With the Cuckoo’s Nest approach, the business ecosystem comes first, and single organizations’ goals or specific design features come second. This article discusses the outcomes of two workshops where the Cuckoo’s Nest approach was used for the purpose of developing business ecosystems in connection with smart city development projects within the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. We outline the steps involved in the Cuckoo’s Nest approach and how they were applied in these two smart city projects, and we describe how it is being refined for further use in other locations and contexts.10abusiness ecosystem10abusiness network10acampus development10aco-creation10aco-design10acollective action10aCuckoo’s Nest Approach10aparticipatory planning10asmart cities10asustainability1 aArtto, Karlos1 aKyrö, Riikka1 aAhola, Tuomas1 aPeltokorpi, Antti1 aSandqvist, Kristiina  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/103901817nas 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/91901736nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245007900055210006900134260004200203300001000245490000600255520109300261653002301354653002501377653002901402653001801431100002301449700002201472856003601494       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aWho Inhabits a Business Ecosystem? The Technospecies as a Unifying Concept0 aWho Inhabits a Business Ecosystem The Technospecies as a Unifyin  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2015  a31-440 v53 aCurrently, many terms are used to describe business ecosystems and their inhabitants. These terms have meanings that can cause definitional confusion and an ambiguous level of analysis as to what constitutes a business ecosystem. To understand business ecosystem relationships, an unambiguous understanding of the ecosystem components is required. The importance of standardized terminology and clear definitions of these components has been recognized in the literature. From a managerial perspective, identifying the relationships a firm is situated in is valuable and useful information that can be practically applied. We propose a business ecosystem model anchored around interdependent technospecies similar to the biological model that many of the existing concepts are drawn from. Technospecies are unique entities based on their organizational routines, capabilities, and use of technology. This article will present an alternative formulation of the business ecosystem model with the aim of synthesizing the diverse terminology presently in use into a concise, common language. 10abusiness ecosystem10abusiness environment10acomplex adaptive systems10atechnospecies1 aWeber, Michael, L.1 aHine, Michael, J.  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/89601862nas a2200301   4500008004100000022001400041245006900055210006900124260004200193300001000235490000600245520100300251653002301254653001801277653002701295653001601322653001601338653001801354653001901372653001501391653001601406100001701422700002001439700001701459700001501476700003301491856003601524       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aOvercoming Barriers to Collaboration in an Open Source Ecosystem0 aOvercoming Barriers to Collaboration in an Open Source Ecosystem  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2014  a18-270 v43 aLeveraging open source practices provides value to businesses when entrepreneurs and managers understand how to collaborate effectively in an open source ecosystem. However, the complex mix of different actors and varying barriers to effective collaboration in the ecosystem pose a substantial challenge. How can a business create and capture value if it depends on effective collaboration among these different groups? In this article, we review the published research on open source collaboration and reveal insights that will be beneficial to entrepreneurs and managers. We organize the published research into four streams based upon the following actor groups: i) governance actors, ii) competitors, iii) complementors, and iv) the core community. Then, through induction and synthesis, we identify barriers to collaboration, first by ecosystem and then by actor group. Finally, we offer six recommendations for identifying and overcoming barriers to collaboration in an open source ecosystem.10abusiness ecosystem10acollaboration10acollaboration barriers10acommunities10acompetitors10acomplementors10acore community10agovernance10aopen source1 aSmith, Derek1 aAlshaikh, Asrar1 aBojan, Rawan1 aKak, Anish1 aManesh, Mohammad, Mehdi Ghar  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/75802298nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245008400055210006900139260004200208300000900250490000600259520147500265653002301740653001801763653002201781653003601803653004301839100001901882700001701901700001801918700002101936700001901957700002001976856003601996       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aDeveloping an Innovation Engine to Make Canada a Global Leader in Cybersecurity0 aDeveloping an Innovation Engine to Make Canada a Global Leader i  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2013  a5-140 v33 aAn engine designed to convert innovation into a country’s global leadership position in a specific product market is examined in this article, using Canada and cybersecurity as an example. Five entities are core to the innovation engine: an ecosystem, a project community, an external community, a platform, and a corporation. The ecosystem is the focus of innovation in firm-specific factors that determine outcomes in global competition; the project community is the focus of innovation in research and development; and the external community is the focus of innovation in resources produced and used by economic actors that operate outside of the focal product market. Strategic intent, governance, resource flows, and organizational agreements bind the five entities together. Operating the innovation engine in Canada is expected to improve the level and quality of prosperity, security, and capacity of Canadians, increase the number of Canadian-based companies that successfully compete globally in cybersecurity product markets, and better protect Canada’s critical infrastructure. Researchers interested in learning how to create, implement, improve, and grow innovation engines will find this article interesting. The article will also be of interest to senior management teams in industry and government, chief information and technology officers, social and policy analysts, academics, and individual citizens who wish to learn how to secure cyberspace. 10abusiness ecosystem10acybersecurity10ainnovation engine10ainnovation in commercialization10ainnovation in research and development1 aBailetti, Tony1 aCraigen, Dan1 aHudson, David1 aLevesque, Renaud1 aMcKeen, Stuart1 aWalsh, D’Arcy  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/71101862nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245007600055210006900131260004200200300001000242490000600252520113300258653002301391653001801414653001801432653002201450653001501472653000901487653002401496653001301520653002201533100001701555856003601572       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aNavigating Risk When Entering and Participating in a Business Ecosystem0 aNavigating Risk When Entering and Participating in a Business Ec  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2013  a25-330 v33 aEntrepreneurs typically have limited resources during the start-up phase of a business. Business ecosystems are a strategy for entrepreneurs to access and exchange many different aspects of value, resources, and benefits. However, there may be business risks for entering a particular type of ecosystem, and further risks may be encountered after entering and participating in a business ecosystem. These risks are significant and can inhibit a startup's growth. In this article, the literature on business ecosystems is reviewed as it relates to risk to discover insights of relevance to entrepreneurs, top management teams, and business-ecosystem operators. First, the published research is organized into two streams: i) risks relating to categories of business ecosystems, and ii) risks relating to participating in business ecosystems. Then, the problem is abstracted to develop a potential strategy for managing these risks, which features a pre-entry inspection followed by real-time resource management. Finally, five recommendations are offered for entrepreneurs seeking to enter and participate in business ecosystems.10abusiness ecosystem10adue diligence10aentrepreneurs10aliterature review10amitigation10arisk10arisk identification10astartups10athreat management1 aSmith, Derek  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/68502058nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245013000055210006900185260004200254300000900296490000600305520137000311653003401681653002301715653001401738653001301752653003201765100001901797856003601816       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aPlatforms, Communities, and Business Ecosystems: Lessons Learned about Technology Entrepreneurship in an Interconnected World0 aPlatforms Communities and Business Ecosystems Lessons Learned ab  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2013  a5-150 v33 aTechnology entrepreneurs are increasingly building businesses that are deliberately anchored in platforms, communities, and business ecosystems. Nonetheless, actionable, evidence-based advice for technology entrepreneurs is scarce. Platforms, communities, and ecosystems are active areas of management research, but until recently, each has been studied in separate research programs, with results published in different venues, and often examined from the perspectives of incumbent managers or policy makers rather than entrepreneurs and new entrants.

This article re-examines these phenomena from the perspective of technology entrepreneurs facing strategic choices about interconnected systems of platforms, communities, and business ecosystems, and decisions about the nature and extent of participation. It brings together insights from a wide range of published sources. For entrepreneurs, it provides an accessible introduction to what can be a complex topic, identifies a set of practical considerations to be accounted for in decision-making, and offers a guide for further reading. For researchers and graduate students seeking practical and high-impact research problems, it provides an entry point to the research literature and identifies gaps in the current body of knowledge, especially regarding the system-level interactions between subsystems. 10aarchitecture of participation10abusiness ecosystem10acommunity10aplatform10atechnology entrepreneurship1 aMuegge, Steven  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/65501678nas a2200205   4500008003900000022001400039245011300053210006900166260004200235300000900277490000600286520095400292653003401246653002301280653003301303653004401336653003701380100001901417856003601436       2011                          d  a1927-032100aBusiness Ecosystems as Institutions of Participation: A Systems Perspective on Community-Developed Platforms0 aBusiness Ecosystems as Institutions of Participation A Systems P  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2011  a4-130 v13 aThis article introduces a systems perspective on community-developed platforms and the institutions that structure participation by individuals and companies. It brings together the past research about technology platforms, company participation in business ecosystems, and individual participation in developer communities, and links these codependent subsystems through resource flows, interconnected institutional arrangements, and shared governance. To achieve this synthesis, it draws on conceptual arguments from a broad range of sources, including Elinor Ostrom's research program on the economics of sustainable commons governance, Tim O'Reilly's practitioner essays about the architecture of participation, and prior management research on modularity and design, resource dependence, and systems thinking. The resulting “systems of systems” perspective is parsimonious and insightful for entrepreneurs, managers, and community leaders. 10aarchitecture of participation10abusiness ecosystem10acommunity-developed platform10ainstitutional analysis and design (IAD)10ameritocratic developer community1 aMuegge, Steven  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/495