01574nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245009600055210006900151260004200220300001000262490000700272520090200279653001901181653001401200653001901214653001701233653002301250100002001273700003301293856003001326       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aKondratieff’s Economic Waves and Future Scenarios Planning: an approach for organizations0 aKondratieff s Economic Waves and Future Scenarios Planning an ap  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2020  a51-610 v103 aThis manuscript aims to present connections between scenario building techniques and Kondratieff's long economic waves, as a way of identifying patterns in medium and long-term planning for companies' future scenarios. This essay considers two different conceptual contributions to improve forecasting on organizations taking as a departure point Kondratieff's economic waves and Schwartz's future scenario planning. Analyzing these two theoretical contributions, we concluded that the information obtained through the path of Kondratieff's waves can delineate future scenarios as a way to anticipate challenges, opportunities, and threats for organizations' contingency planning. As a contribution for practitioners, considering these two approaches together enables greater performance for strategic planning of future scenarios that can be applied by organizations across a range of industries.10aEconomic waves10aforesight10aFuture studies10aKondratieff.10aStrategic Planning1 aFerasso, Marcos1 aBergamaschi, Eloisio, Andrey  utimreview.ca/article/132701870nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245009700055210006900152260004200221300000900263490000600272520104200278653003301320653001801353653002201371653002601393653000901419653001701428653002501445100002801470700002401498700002401522700002001546856003801566       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aKick-Start for Connectivity: How to Implement Digital Platforms Successfully in Industry 4.00 aKickStart for Connectivity How to Implement Digital Platforms Su  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2019  a5-150 v93 aBased on digitalization and interconnectedness, Industry 4.0 causes a structural change in the value creation processes, and thus reinforces the transformation of business processes and business models. One way for companies to cope with this development and its associated challenges is to apply digital platforms in the value creation process. As the potential of digital platforms for industrial value creation can only be leveraged to its full extent with adequate implementation, this paper addresses the research question: How are digital platforms best implemented in Industry 4.0 contexts; Using a qualitative case study design, based on 32 semi-structured expert interviews, the study identifies different triggers and initiators, challenges, and respective countermeasures, as thematic core elements of implementation, and requirements for platforms. The research insights contribute to existing literature on Industry 4.0 and digital platforms. In addition, the paper discusses practical implications for industrial companies.10aBuyer-Supplier Relationships10acollaboration10adigital platforms10aDigital Technologies.10aIIoT10aIndustry 4.010aSupplier Integration1 aSchmidt, Marie-Christin1 aVeile, Johannes, W.1 aMüller, Julian, M.1 aVoigt, Kai-Ingo  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/127101640nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245007500055210006900130260004200199300001000241490000600251520096100257653001501218653001501233653001001248653001501258653001601273653001301289100002101302700001901323700001801342856003801360       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aKey Constructs and a Definition of Living Labs as Innovation Platforms0 aKey Constructs and a Definition of Living Labs as Innovation Pla  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a51-620 v83 aDespite the growing popularity of using living labs as innovation platforms and the increasing scholarly attention toward the topic, still relatively little is known about many of their central characteristics. We use a qualitative research approach to identify key constructs of living labs and to understand how these constructs show up in the operation of living labs. So doing, we used theoretical constructs from the literature on user innovation, co-creation, and living labs to analyze a sample of membership applications to the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). The results from the content analysis of 40 applications revealed nine key constructs that are characteristic to living labs: 1) objective, 2) governance, 3) openness, 4) stakeholders, 5) funding, 6) value, 7) communications, 8) infrastructure, and 9) methods. These key constructs provide new insight that helps us to provide a definition of living labs as innovation platforms.10aconstructs10adefinition10aENoLL10ainnovation10aliving labs10aplatform1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aHabib, Christ  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120501802nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245008900055210006900144260004200213300001000255490000600265520117400271653001601445653001701461653001401478653003201492653001201524100002401536856003601560       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aKey Factors Affecting a Technology Entrepreneur's Choice of Incubator or Accelerator0 aKey Factors Affecting a Technology Entrepreneurs Choice of Incub  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2013  a16-220 v33 aTechnology entrepreneurship rarely succeeds in isolation; increasingly, it occurs in interconnected networks of business partners and other organizations. For entrepreneurs lacking access to an established business ecosystem, incubators and accelerators provide a possible support mechanism for access to partners and resources. Yet, these relatively recent approaches to supporting entrepreneurship are still evolving. Therefore, it can be challenging for entrepreneurs to assess these mechanisms and to make insightful decisions on whether or not to join an incubator or accelerator, and which incubator or accelerator best meets their needs.

In this article, five key factors that entrepreneurs should take into consideration about incubators and accelerators are offered. Insights are drawn from two surveys of managers and users of incubators and accelerators. An understanding of these five key success factors (stage of venture, fit with incubator’s mission, selection and graduation policies, services provided, and network of partners) and potential pitfalls will help entrepreneurs confidently enter into a relationship with an incubator or accelerator. 10aaccelerator10aentrepreneur10aincubator10atechnology entrepreneurship10aventure1 aIsabelle, Diane, A.  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/65602627nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245006100055210006100116260004200177300001000219490000600229520192000235653002402155653003002179653002202209653001802231653001402249653001902263653003202282100001602314700001902330856003602349       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aKeystone Business Models for Network Security Processors0 aKeystone Business Models for Network Security Processors  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2013  a25-330 v33 aNetwork security processors are critical components of high-performance systems built for cybersecurity. Development of a network security processor requires multi-domain experience in semiconductors and complex software security applications, and multiple iterations of both software and hardware implementations. Limited by the business models in use today, such an arduous task can be undertaken only by large incumbent companies and government organizations. Neither the “fabless semiconductor” models nor the silicon intellectual-property licensing (“IP-licensing”) models allow small technology companies to successfully compete. This article describes an alternative approach that produces an ongoing stream of novel network security processors for niche markets through continuous innovation by both large and small companies. This approach, referred to here as the "business ecosystem model for network security processors", includes a flexible and reconfigurable technology platform, a “keystone” business model for the company that maintains the platform architecture, and an extended ecosystem of companies that both contribute and share in the value created by innovation. New opportunities for business model innovation by participating companies are made possible by the ecosystem model. This ecosystem model builds on: i) the lessons learned from the experience of the first author as a senior integrated circuit architect for providers of public-key cryptography solutions and as the owner of a semiconductor startup, and ii) the latest scholarly research on technology entrepreneurship, business models, platforms, and business ecosystems. This article will be of interest to all technology entrepreneurs, but it will be of particular interest to owners of small companies that provide security solutions and to specialized security professionals seeking to launch their own companies.10abusiness ecosystems10abusiness model innovation10acommercialization10acybersecurity10aplatforms10asemiconductors10atechnology entrepreneurship1 aLow, Arthur1 aMuegge, Steven  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/70301101nas a2200121   4500008004100000022001400041245005400055210005400109260004200163520071600205100002200921856003600943       2011                        eng d  a1913-610200aKey Player Identification in the Mashup Ecosystem0 aKey Player Identification in the Mashup Ecosystem  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/20113 aBy combining multiples sources of data to create a new application, mashups represent a powerful source of innovation. Together, the various data providers, developers, mashup platforms, and users constitute an ecosystem that depends on innovation from these various players for its growth and success. This article summarizes recent research into the network structure of the mashup ecosystem, along with the positions and roles of entities within it. This research illustrates analytical methods for identifying key players in an ecosystem, while delivering new insights into the structure of the mashup ecosystem. Finally, the implications of these findings for entrepreneurs and incumbents are discussed.
 1 aBardawil, Monique  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/41701713nas a2200121   4500008004100000022001400041245003300055210003100088260004200119520137500161100001901536856003601555       2010                        eng d  a1913-610200aKeystone: Adjective or Noun?0 aKeystone Adjective or Noun  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/20103 aThe gopher tortoise is an unassuming land animal that inhabits sandy regions of the southeastern United States. Like many other desert inhabitants it needs to seek shelter from the heat of the sun. Gopher tortoises are very adept at digging burrows in which they can hide during the peak hours of the day. These burrows offer shelter to many other species that are not able to dig underground. Without the burrows dug by tortoises many types of rodents and snakes would not be able to survive. The existence of the gopher tortoise in its ecosystem affects the health of many other species.

The gopher tortoise is an example of a keystone species or keystone. As in biological ecosystems, some companies or institutions in business ecosystems are instrumental for the better well-being of others. They play the role of a keystone. In this article, we examine the question of what makes a keystone a keystone. We introduce two perspectives on that question: one provided by ecology, the other by network analysis. We then review how the term keystone is used by the literature on business ecosystems.

Two lessons that readers should take from this article are that the keystone concept, as used by the majority of the business ecosystem literature, is not clearly articulated, and that there are many unresolved issues in applying the concept to business ecosystems.1 aWeiss, Michael  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/37601276nas a2200121   4500008004100000022001400041245002700055210002500082260004200107520095000149100001901099856003601118       2010                        eng d  a1913-610200aKeystone Off-The-Shelf0 aKeystone OffTheShelf  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/20103 aIn this article, we describe the Keystone Off-The-Shelf (KOTS), a project to create a toolkit for platform owners. The toolkit will include everything that is required to operate a platform that supports a new approach to grow the revenue of small technology companies. 

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the KOTS project and the new approach to development and commercialization that it supports. We first describe the project's goal, objective, deliverables, and leadership. Next, we compare the new approach to development and commercialization that KOTS supports with two traditional approaches. We then identify the culture that best supports the new approach and provide an overview of the three key conceptual building blocks of this approach: integration of stakeholders' interests into development and commercialization decisions, value co-creation, and trust building. Finally, we provide the conclusions. 
 1 aBailetti, Tony  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/37700753nas a2200121   4500008004100000022001400041245003800055210003800093260004200131520040200173100002000575856003600595       2008                        eng d  a1913-610200aKey Elements of Social Innovation0 aKey Elements of Social Innovation  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/20083 aThis article describes four key elements of social innovation: i) social technology; ii) innovation intermediaries; iii) people who drive innovation; and iv) openness. By taking experiences from social technology and examining the impact of "open everything", this article posits the value of innovation intermediaries as critical enablers of success in the emergent field of social innovation.
 1 aHewitt, Allyson  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/18500977nas a2200121   4500008004100000022001400041245005000055210005000105260004200155520060600197100001600803856003600819       2007                        eng d  a1913-610200aKey Changes to the GNU General Public License0 aKey Changes to the GNU General Public License  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/20073 aOn June 29, 2007, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) issued the GNU General Public License Version 3. The issuance of GPLv3 marked the end of a remarkable public consultation process aimed at revamping the license to address issues that the FSF considers to be a threat to the Free Software movement, and to clarify issues that have been misunderstood or debated since the publications of GPL Version 2 (GPLv2). 

This article introduces the rationale for changing the GPL and introduces the changes that affect patents, Digital Rights Management (DRM), license compatibility, and the linking issue.1 aSmith, Eric  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/10601007nas a2200121   4500008004100000022001400041245006200055210006100117260004200178520061300220100001700833856003500850       2007                        eng d  a1913-610200aKeystone Organization for Ontario's Open Source Ecosystem0 aKeystone Organization for Ontarios Open Source Ecosystem  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/20073 aMany companies, individuals and organizations in Ontario produce and use open source assets and processes to provide unique value to their customers, clients, and themselves. To better enable these companies, individuals and organizations to (i) co-evolve capabilities and roles, (ii) align themselves with companies holding leadership roles, and (iii) invest in shared visions, the Talent First Network (TFN) has become the keystone organization of Ontario's open source ecosystem. This article introduces the TFN and identifies the steps it is taking to better support the Ontario Open Source Ecosystem. 
1 aFew, Rowland  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/85