02110nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245011900055210006900174260004200243300001000285490000600295520114100301653002501442653001801467653001501485653002201500653002001522653001901542653001601561653002901577653001401606653001801620100002201638700002801660700002401688700002701712700002101739856003601760       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aIdentifying the Challenges in Commercializing High Technology: A Case Study of Quantum Key Distribution Technology0 aIdentifying the Challenges in Commercializing High Technology A   aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2015  a26-360 v53 aThis article examines the challenges in commercializing high technologies successfully and sustainably using quantum key distribution (QKD) technology as a case study. Quantum communication is increasingly relevant to cybersecurity and nanotechnology, which will replace current technologies and change the way we live. To understand how such high technology could be successfully commercialized, we interviewed individuals from four metrology institutions and two international companies. The result revealed that scattered and small markets, supply chain development, technology validation/certification, a lack of available or adequate infrastructure, and after-sales services are the most serious challenges facing successful commercialization of quantum communication technology. To validate these challenges, we conducted a survey of 60 experts, 49 of whom agreed that above-mentioned factors could affect the commercialization success of QKD technology. Likewise, the survey revealed that technical development, customer orientation/awareness, and government regulations could also hinder the commercialization of QKD technology.10aafter-sales services10acertification10achallenges10acommercialization10ahigh technology10ainfrastructure10amarket size10aquantum key distribution10astandards10asupply chains1 aNatsheh, Anas, Al1 aGbadegeshin, Saheed, A.1 aRimpiläinen, Antti1 aImamovic-Tokalic, Irna1 aZambrano, Andrea  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/86400619nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245006600055210006100121260004200182300001000224490000600234653000900240653001100249653002800260653001300288653002100301653001400322653001200336100001700348856003600365       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aTIM Lecture Series – When Are Software Systems Safe Enough?0 aTIM Lecture Series When Are Software Systems Safe Enough  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a56-580 v510arisk10asafety10asafety-critical systems10asecurity10asoftware systems10astandards10atesting1 aHobbs, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95302332nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008600055210006900141260004200210300001000252490000600262520153500268653001301803653001601816653003101832653001501863653002801878653001401906653001901920653001501939653001501954653001401969100001801983700001702001856003602018       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aCybersecurity Capability Maturity Models for Providers of Critical Infrastructure0 aCybersecurity Capability Maturity Models for Providers of Critic  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2014  a33-390 v43 aCritical infrastructure such as power generation and distribution systems, telecommunications networks, pipelines and pipeline control networks, transportation control networks, financial networks, and government information and communications technology (ICT) have increasingly become the target of cyber-attacks. The impact and cost of these threats, as well as regulatory pressure to mitigate them, have created an impetus to secure these critical infrastructures. Managers have many controls and models at their disposal to help them secure infrastructure technology, including cybersecurity capability maturity models to enable measurement and communication of cybersecurity readiness to top management teams, regulators, and customers, thereby facilitating regulatory compliance, corporate responsibility, and improved brand quality. However, information and awareness is lacking about which models are most appropriate for a given situation and how they should be deployed.

This article examines relevant cybersecurity capability maturity models to identify the standards and controls available to providers of critical infrastructure in an effort to improve their level of security preparedness. These capability models are described and categorized by their relevance to different infrastructure domains, and then recommendations are provided on employing capability maturity models to measure and communicate readiness. This article will be relevant to regulators, critical infrastructure providers, and researchers. 10aadoption10abersecurity10acapability maturity models10acompliance10acritical infrastructure10aframework10amunicipalities10aprotection10aregulation10astandards1 aMiron, Walter1 aMuita, Kevin  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/83700854nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245003600055210003300091260004200124300000800166490000600174653001800180653002400198653002000222653002100242653001800263653001500281653002300296653004200319653001400361653001600375653002900391653001400420653001300434653002200447653001700469100001800486856003600504       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (July 2014)0 aEditorial Insights July 2014  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2014  a3-40 v410aambidexterity10abusiness ecosystems10abusiness models10aentrepreneurship10aimprovisation10ainnovation10aInternet of Things10aknowledge-intensive business services10aplatforms10apublic good10apublicly funded research10astandards10astrategy10avalue co-creation10avalue design1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/80601320nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245009600055210006900151260004200220300001000262490000600272520057800278653001700856653001900873653001800892653001500910653001700925653001400942653001400956653002400970100001900994700001701013856003601030       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aInnovation Opportunities: An Overview of Standards and Platforms in the Video Game Industry0 aInnovation Opportunities An Overview of Standards and Platforms   aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2014  a15-210 v43 aThe video game industry offers insights into the significance of standards and platforms. Furthermore, it shows examples of how new entrants can offer innovative services, while reducing their own risk, through bridging the boundaries between standards. Through an exploration of both past and present, this article aims to serve as a primer for understanding, firstly, the technological standards and platforms of the video game industry, and secondly, the recent innovations within the video game industry that have enabled products to be made available across platforms.10aarcade games10acomputer games10aconsole games10ainnovation10amobile games10aplatforms10astandards10avideo game industry1 aLaakso, Mikael1 aNyman, Linus  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/80802093nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245006500055210006500120260004200185300000900227490000600236520141900242653002301661653001501684653002701699653001401726653002501740653002901765653001701794100001601811856003601827       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aEvolution of Wireless Sensor Networks for Industrial Control0 aEvolution of Wireless Sensor Networks for Industrial Control  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2013  a5-120 v33 aTechnologies evolve in a process of gradual scientific change, but the commercial application of technologies is discontinuous. Managers interested in technology evolution can integrate these contrasting ideas using a powerful theoretical framework, based on the concept of punctuated equilibrium from evolutionary biology. The framework, which enables the differentiation of the technical evolution of a technology from its market application, is used in this article to compare the two standards for wireless sensor networks (WSN) for industrial instrumentation and control: WirelessHART and ISA100.11a. 

The two WSN standards are the product of two different market contexts, which have selected different minimum viable technologies for evolution in their respective niches. Network security issues present some important selection criteria. Both WSN standards implement security countermeasures against localized wireless network attacks based on the application of the AES encryption standard, but some specific security threats – some local, others remotely launched – are only well-defended by the adoption of public-key cryptographic (PKC) protocols, which only ISA100.11a supports. This article concludes that the mainstream market potential of the Internet has influenced the evolution of ISA100.11a and will continue to demand that each WSN standard evolve in ways that are difficult to predict.10aindustrial control10aISA100.11a10apunctuated equilibrium10astandards10atechnology evolution10awireless sensor networks10aWirelessHART1 aLow, Arthur  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/682