Next Article in Journal
Two-Stage Physical Economic Adjustable Capacity Evaluation Model of Electric Vehicles for Peak Shaving and Valley Filling Auxiliary Services
Previous Article in Journal
Circular Economy and Environmental Sustainability: A Policy Coherence Analysis of Current Italian Subsidies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 15
10.3390/su13158151
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Innovation Management Systems and Standards: A Systematic Literature Review and Guidance for Future Research

by
M-Chukri Idris
* and
Alptekin Durmuşoğlu
Department of Industrial Engineering, Gaziantep University, 27310 Gaziantep, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(15), 8151; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158151
Submission received: 6 June 2021 / Revised: 3 July 2021 / Accepted: 12 July 2021 / Published: 21 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Topic Industrial Engineering and Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In order to establish an innovation culture, a set of organizational procedures and practices called “Innovation Management”, which may differ among companies, should be followed. At the enterprise level, systematic innovation management becomes more complicated. A number of works covering various aspects of this subject have been published. However, a systematic synthesis of all of these contributions is still lacking in management literature. In this review, we aim to analyze and classify the main contributions published on the topic of innovation management systems/standards in management literature, seeking to discover the gaps which still remain in the literature, and to outline future avenues of research in this domain. More than 70 articles in Innovation Management Systems/Standards (IMS/St) studies published in peer-reviewed journals during 2006–2020 are reviewed and analyzed systematically by searching the science databases ScienceDirect, Scopus and Emerald, etc., and using Google Scholar and Mendeley Elsevier to identify related terms. A complete and accurate view of the latest literature on IMS/St is provided, which identifies the main topics developed in the management literature on IMS/St, as well as significant gaps, and demonstrates the low maturity level of the current state of the field. This paper contributes theoretically to the development of literature on IMS/St and provides a clear understanding of the state of the field during the period 2006–2020, shedding light on the research needed in the future in this field of study. From a managerial perspective, it can help companies to better understand the implications of IMS/St, and to harvest the best benefits from the implementation of IMS/St. Our study also answers these three important questions: 1. What are the main topics developed in the management literature on IMS/St so far? 2. Are innovation management standards mature from a practical point of view? 3. What are the main research gaps in management literature, and how could future avenues of research be shaped?

1. Introduction

We can describe innovation as the development of new products or the significant improvement of new goods or services. It can also be defined as new marketing, organizational, or business strategies [1]. In the innovation management systems literature, innovation is commonly considered to be a fundamental dynamic of the enhancement of corporate competitiveness [2]. Perhaps for this reason, the innovation process is deemed an indispensable corporate process which has to be appropriately managed in order to foster business performance in the aspects of business profitability, productivity, quality of service, and customer and employee satisfaction [3], and to achieve a reasonable return on investment for the resources required by the these processes.
Standardized innovation management systems (SIMS) are homogeneous management systems which accelerate the conversion of an organization’s innovation strategy into effective actions [4,5]. Thus, SIMSs ensure that innovation means not mere shiny novel inventions, but rather an organization’s ability to recognize and pursue new areas of opportunity while reacting to fluctuating conditions in its environment [6]. In 2006, the Spanish Association for Standardization and Certification (AENOR) issued the Spanish UNE 166002: 2006, the first innovation management standard, as sets of principles intended to aid organizations in navigating the multifaceted process of innovation, schematizing their activities and improving management efficiency. In the same context, other countries have developed similar standards, such as the BS 7000-1: 2008 standard (BSI, 2008) in the UK (first edition in 1989), while some countries have amended the Spanish standards, such as Portugal (IQP, 2007), Mexico (NMX, 2008), Brazil (ABNT, 2011) and Denmark (Dansk Standard, 2010).
Two systematic literature reviews for innovation management systems were conducted. One analyzed 27 articles in order to build a tentative interpretative framework of innovation management systems which critically highlights and discusses their most common elements and aspects [7], and the other focused exclusively on models that graphically represent innovation management [8].
This paper offers theoretical contributions to the literature on, and provides for a clear understanding of, innovation management systems/standards (IMS/St) in the period 2006–2020, and guides researchers in this field of study by shedding light on the research needed in the future. From a managerial perspective, it could support companies in better understanding the implications and fields of application of IMS/St, and in developing a productive method to adopt one of these systems/standards. This study will answer these three main research questions:
MRQ1. What are the main topics developed in the management literature on IMS/St so far?
MRQ2. Have innovation management standards matured from a practical point of view?
MRQ3. What are the main research gaps in the management literature and how could future avenues of research could be shaped?

2. Methodology: Article Selection

Our approach to the literature review was designed to be organized, clear and reproducible [9]. The systematic literature review was conducted for the papers appeared between 1 November 2020 and 1 February 2021, and began with a search for peer-reviewed journal articles in scientific journal databases, as this review process is a tool for quality management that verifies the information presented by these articles [10].
We chose the Mendeley and Google Scholar search engines, as they are the main free tools for academic research that have expanded their research capabilities in recent years [11].
In searching and selecting the articles, five successive steps were followed:
  • As a first step, “Innovation Management” was searched as a keyword in the title, as is consistent with the current literature [9,12,13,14]; after combining the results from databases, 7476 outcomes were found.
  • In the second step, the number of articles was reduced to 599 after we applied three restrictions:
    • They should be peer-review published papers.
    • The papers should be written in English.
    • The publication dates should range from 2006 to 2020; 2006 is the year in which Spanish UNE 166002: 2006 standard was issued by the Spanish Association for Standardization and Certification, which was a major improvement in innovation management systems and standards. These characteristics excluded papers that may have had less scientific rigor, such as monographs, book chapters and other non-refereed journals.
  • In the third step, the sample was reduced to 431 titles after removing duplicates from the article list.
  • The fourth step, after having collected all of the results using reference management software, was to review all of the titles and abstracts in order to determine whether the basic relevance criteria were met [14,15], and then we excluded those beyond our context [12,16,17], i.e., articles not concerned with innovation management systems or standards were deemed irrelevant. As a result, 68 studies were accepted [18].
  • Finally, we manually resumed the search and tracked citations [14,16,19], which resulted in the addition of five more articles. In the end, samples of 73 publications were collected. Table 1 shows the above-mentioned steps, and Appendix A shows a list of the relevant papers.
The final sample was analyzed using an Excel datasheet [14], and the final database includes information such as the type of author (single author or collaboration), the type of paper (conceptual or empirical), the design, the type of research performed (survey, theoretical, data analysis), the applied methodology, and the key findings and contributions of each article.
After that, we pre-tested and shared the coding scheme with two field scholars in order to reach a consensus on the final information to be used. We synthesized the evidence, providing a clear perception of the status of the innovation management systems/standards literature. This systematic clustering process represents a consistent approach for future research.

3. Descriptive Results: Analysis

3.1. Analysis of the Article Years, Type, Effect and Recurrence

The database of the results allowed the extrapolation of some interesting information, even at a general level. First of all, the annual distribution of the articles reveals that the subject was of less importance before 2012; seven articles were published in 2012, and the article frequency peaked at 24 articles from 2015 to 2017, as shown in Figure 1.
In addition to the 57 other academic journals represented, the Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences and Technovation are the most relevant journals which have published articles on this topic, with three articles each. In total, 32 articles were published in the journals with scores of more than 0.5 (impact factor 2019), as shown in Table 2.

3.2. Analysis of the Countries of Origin

The articles were created in a various geographical regions. As shown in Figure 2, 52% of the articles were from Europe, 10% were from Asia, 10% were from South America and 22% had no geographical identifications.
The highest proportion from any one country was from Spain, at 14%. This result maybe related to the fact that Spain was the first country to introduce innovation management standards (Spain 2006 UNE 166002:2006–R&D&I Management: Requirements of the R&D&I management system) [20].

4. Comprehensive Review of IMS/St

From the point view of the methodological approaches adopted in the papers, the 73 selected articles were classified into three different groups: Theoretical (group A), Experimental Qualitative (group B) and Experimental Quantitative (group C). The studies in group C were further divided into two subgroups: articles that investigated the ways in which innovation management systems/standards affect company performance (subgroup C1), and articles that analyzed innovation management standards and systems (subgroup C2). This classification will be used to identify the ways in which the papers contribute differently to the innovation management literature. In addition, we considered the key topics and subtopics studied and the models developed (if any) for each article.

4.1. Group A: Theoretical Studies

Articles discussing theoretical perspectives and expanding the use of theories are of great importance for the development of the academic debate (see Table 3). During our examination of the articles, we found that about half of them (13/24) relied on literature analysis as the main tool for research, and three of them relied on data analysis, whether expert review data [21,22] or empirical data [23], to verify their outputs. Only two articles used national data to verify the companies’ ability to face challenges through innovative management practices [24,25]. Four articles analyzed IMS/St innovation management standards by comparing them [26] or analyzing one of them in depth [27,28,29]. Only one article used a theoretical approach to develop an innovation management model, which the researchers called a “Cognitive Approach” [30].
Furthermore, 33% of these articles (eight articles) developed a new model, but five of them did not verify the outcomes [4,30,31,32,33], although each of them declared the unique characteristics for their models.
The innovation level in each sector in an organization can be identified at any time through an Innovation Management System Framework (e.g., [31,33]) that can create an environment in which innovation is a natural practice involving all of the stakeholders. Under challenging conditions of shifting resources in an innovative economy, Ref. [30]’s model may choose the company’s innovation development concept. Ref. [4] assumes that by using their framework, practitioners will be able to analyze their innovation management activities; recognize gaps, weaknesses, or defects; improve future extraction areas where innovation is only nominally adopted in their processes; and specify the areas in which interest and resources may be concentrated. Ref. [32] illustrates an approach that incorporates good and relevant techniques in the following management areas: (a) strategic management, (b) project management, (c) innovation models and methods, (d) innovation management standards, (e) knowledge management and (f) financial management.
Refs. [21,22] validated their models by having them reviewed by experts and senior managers. Ref. [22] shows that their Corporate Innovation Management Business Model encourages a company to recognize concepts, activities, or projects, eventually helping them to achieve market success. However, Ref. [21] illustrates, in their model, that customers and individuals can play a major role in the innovation process; in this model, Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 technologies are important enablers. Only [23] used experimental data to validate the model, of which the implementation in business reality has process-oriented implications.

4.2. Group B: Experimental Qualitative Studies

By using single-case or multi-case research methods, we collected 29 qualitative articles (see Table 4), three of which analyzed big data to validate their claims. Ref. [44] analyzed the data of 730 European companies to affirm that the spread of the UNE 166,002 Innovation Management Standard followed the logical S-shaped curve of the internationalization model. In order to recognize “Trust” as the prevalent sentiment associated with innovation, and given the increasing relevance of emerging technologies in the company’s innovative activities and the declining of old technologies, Ref. [45] used data from 243 Spanish companies. Ref. [46] used samples of 460 Colombian companies, and found that it is possible to process innovation management and quality management in parallel and to promote each of them without harming the other. Ref. [47] used a sample of 122 Romanian companies and concluded that an Innovation Management System affects the company’s ability and understanding of innovation actions positively, and increases the innovation quality, which directly affects the organization’s business performance. Ref. [48] concluded—on the basis of 24 samples and one case study—that there is no direct correlation between the implementation of an innovative management system and increasing the competitiveness of construction companies, and that this may be due to the fact that these processes were in the early stages of implementation when conducting the research.
We also found that 34.4% of this group’s articles developed and verified a new model with specific added value. Ref. [49] developed a model which encourages the utilization and exploration methods from the front end of the innovation process in order for them to be shared at the same stage of implementation, and continues to create a shared understanding of the vision and the use information and resources. The model of [50] improved the incremental and radical product and process innovations resulting from consumer demands, market pull and technology push activities in the company. Complicated recent situations of management systems inside companies [51] facilitated the integration of an innovation management system in the complicated system by developing a new approach, and to solve the same complex issues in companies, the model of [52] created a community of learning as a space for innovation within the organization.
Technology, marketing and innovation management could be integrated, as [53] suggested in their model. Ref. [54]’s model was built on the concept of stakeholders combined with knowledge mining. For managers to innovate systematically, Ref. [55]’s model provided guidelines, which were verified by three years of observation in a Spanish company. Ref. [56]’s model facilitated decision-making in innovative sustainable process design and enabled development teams to identify their own most useful standards, required gateways and key goals. Ref. [57]’s model was the most appropriate for high-tech enterprises, because it encourages market-oriented cooperation along the industrial chain. Ref. [25] used their model to consider and integrate the degrees of innovation (incremental and radical).
The impact of IMS/ST on companies’ performances was analyzed in three articles. The findings of the case studies conducted by [28,58,59,60,61] were that innovation management techniques could be used to plan the activities and affect the company’s performance positively. They further demonstrated that IMS/St is consistent with ISO 9001, and with maintaining, developing, and innovating R&D&I research. Ref. [62] analyzed and improved organizational culture and human resource management to establish more fertile ground for an innovation environment, which reflects more on the structure and practice of dealing with innovation problems every day [63]. However, Ref. [61] believed that the effectiveness of a self-certification program relies on the company’s ability to manage processes, provided that internally guided motivation is established and the top management’s firm commitment is ensured.
In studies of this group, various fields were studied, i.e., services [64], communications, construction, industry, nanotechnology [62], education [60], labs [65], mobile industry [66], aerospace [58] and countries (Peru, Colombia, Spain, France, etc.). Just one study examined the main innovation challenges of managing uncertainty and risk, and the difficulty of cross-functional coordination [67].

4.3. Group C: Experimental Quantitative Studies

As mentioned earlier, the Experimental Quantitative Studies were divided into two subgroups. In Group C1, articles investigating the ways in which the innovation management system/standards affect company performance, we studied the papers in which one or more directions of the company’s performance were the focus. Operational procedures for product innovation performance meeting the unidimensionality, reliability, and validity criteria were proposed by [68], and these procedures were validated by structural equation models in 253 French biotech manufacturing companies. The research concluded that the impact of IMS on the company’s performance was directly analyzed in seven of these articles [2,20,69,70,71,72,73]. Ref. [71] linked the main components of the innovation process with growth success, and this finding was confirmed in six companies. From a sample of 763 companies, Ref. [69] found that innovation is poorly related to company sales, although administrative innovation, rather than technological innovation, has become the most important innovation element impacting sales.
In that same context, Ref. [72] argued that excellent company performance may be due to organizational innovation and technical skills in products and processes. Ref. [20] used a sample of 1000 companies to demonstrate that Innovation Management Standards have a strong positive relationship with a company’s Innovation Capability (IC) and Business Performance (BP), while [73] concluded—from a sample of 3668—that management innovation positively affects company performance in the form of subsequent productivity growth.
As mentioned above, except for [69], which pointed out that there is a poor link between IMS and sales, all of them showed that IMS has a positive impact on company performance. The impact of IMS on Innovation Performance was examined by four studies [70,74,75,76], but after evaluating five certified and four non-certified companies, it was found that commercialization and diffusion for product/service and innovation achievements benefit even more from the reinforcement of a formal innovation management system when the IMS organizational strategy of innovation is applied. Concerning the predictive factors of the company’s innovation performance, Ref. [70] studied a sample of 566 companies and found that using IMTs in the companies could create these factors, particularly when considering incremental innovation results. Furthermore, the use of innovation management technology has a major impact on the performance of incremental and radical innovation, as radical and incremental innovation contributes to innovation performance [75]. Therefore, all types of innovation and their benefits will also be helped by the implementation of SIMS [76]. Ref. [70] mentioned that when a company has not yet reached a reasonable size but is willing to certify IMS, this often overloads it.
Further details of all of these studies are shown in Table 5.
When reviewing the articles in Group C2, i.e., articles researching IM standards and systems, we found that [77] claimed that the innovation management standard Cen/TS 16,555 is ineffective, mainly due to the lack of consensus among European countries. Ref. [78] found that when agendas and methods are standardized, the management innovation process within the organizations may have a significant effect. In other words, the more standardized the company innovation processes are, the more incremental innovations take place in the organization, rather than more exploratory and revolutionary changes.
The primary innovation capabilities (innovation skills, information security, management and performance evaluation) and the significance of company management in the field of innovation in the public service sector were identified by [79] after examining a survey with a sample of 321 articles. However, Ref. [80] found that understanding innovation strategies, encouraging management, risk tolerance culture, and autonomy are also valuable innovation management tools.
Ref. [81] discussed four key reflections for the assessment of organizational innovation: the complexity of the organizational innovation, the life cycle of the organizational innovation, the extent of the use of the organizational innovation, and the quality of the organizational innovation.
Concerning Dual Innovation Management Systems, which consist of two innovation management systems, one for processing current business areas and the other for the development of new business areas, Ref. [82] identified this concept and found that CTOs who effectively implement dual innovation management actively strive to obtain technical information and information about their companies’ social environment. Ref. [83] examined the role of management innovation in achieving technological process innovation, and explained the interlinkages of the two innovation types over time. Management innovation theory is expanded by conceptualizing management innovation in an inter-organizational environment. Refs. [79,84] developed their innovation management frameworks through questionnaires, but neither of their models were verified.
Further details of all of these studies are shown in Table 6.

5. Discussion

The first research question put forward in the introduction of the paper was the following: MRQ1—What are the main topics developed in management literature on IMS/St so far? As shown in Table 7, of the 73 quantitative articles found, 50 studied innovation management systems as the mainstream of innovation management, and eight articles studied innovation management systems’ impact on innovation performance.
The standardization process is essential, as it provides common language, terminology, credibility, facilitated implementation, and a benchmarking basis [85]. Unifying these characteristics supports the adoption of IMS/St all over the world; as such, in Table 8, we classified the “Innovation Management Standards” articles into three sub-groups (compatibility, impact on companies, standard analysis).
As to MRQ2—Are innovation management standards mature from practical point of view, as shown in the literature?—as shown in Table 7, only 15 articles studied innovation management standards, and this may be due to the relative newness of the standards or because they have not been widely disseminated globally, particularly because the ISO 56,000 series had only recently been released by the time of writing this article.
Standards analysis was mentioned twice, as [44] dealt with the predicted prevalence curve of the UNE166002 Innovation Management Standard, and [26] compared two IMSs—the Spanish UNE 166002: 2006 and the UK BS 7000-1: 2008—to improve the actions taken to create IMS in the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), which, as [77] found in their research, was ineffective. As shown in Table 8 above, there were seven articles analyzing the impact of IMS/St implementation on the enterprises, and explaining the ways in which the implementation of IMS/St can encourage innovation, improve procedures [28], and promote various types of innovation and outcomes [76]. From another point of view, IMS/St implementation can broaden innovation capabilities and encourage value creation through innovation activities [2,59], eventually creating more value for the organization and its stakeholders [27]. Researchers found that “trust” is the predominant value associated with innovation among stakeholders [45]. The positive effect of implementing IMS/St on innovation and marketing performance was also validated [61].
Regarding compliance with ISO 9001, several articles concluded that IMS/St is consistent with this standard, and that they can be processed in parallel and reinforce each other [46,62]. In the context of the education sector, Ref. [60] found that IMS/St could be used to organize higher education level activities, and could have a significant effect on students’ learning and achievements. However, in the context of the high-tech sector, Ref. [57] studied a telecommunications company in China and concluded that three main elements should be prioritized in IMS/St: “Strategic innovation plan, Internal R&D practices and External cooperative innovation”, in addition to considering the intellectual property management, market focus and cooperation on the industrial chain. Furthermore, theoretical research has shown that companies which implement innovation activities while following IMS technical specifications can combine the “Knowledge Triangle” and “Quadruple Helix” approaches in order to keep from isolating themselves [43]. In addition to the above, the fact that a relatively large number of articles (23) suggest new innovation management models and a relatively small number of articles discuss IMS/St shows the low maturity level of the IMS/St.
This leaves MRQ3—What are the main research gaps in management literature and how could future avenues of research be shaped?—to be addressed. Apart from the gaps and future avenues of research which emerged from answering the previous research questions, some other areas in the IMS/St domain are of particular interest from a management point of view. In particular:
  • IMS/St needs to be studied in relation to the added values which have been mentioned for each of the new models above, in order to validate whether IMS/St (specially ISO 56000) covers each of them, and if not, to find the needed improvements for IMS/St to fulfill the needs of companies for these added values. The conformity of IMS/St with various sectors of services and industry could also be a very interesting topic for further investigation.
  • Various management standards (environmental management standards, sustainability management standards, social responsibility management standards, quality management standards, etc.) have been adopted in companies. The method of the adoption of IMS/St needs to be clearly studied in order to make the adoption process successful, and to reduce opportunities for conflict between these management standards and IMS/St.
  • More standard analysis of the present IMSts is still needed.
  • A comparative study on IMS/St standards is still needed in order to find the strengths and weaknesses of each of them (although one paper [26] considered here did address this issue). This provides a good opportunity to develop IMS/St standards.
  • The impact of IMS/St on each type of innovation still needs more research in order to give better understanding of it.
  • The impact of IMS/St on innovation performance should be tested and evaluated in different sectors.
  • The connection between IMS/St and value creation should be investigated.
  • The impact of IMS/St on the performance of companies in detail and overall, also deserves more attention, as the impact of IMS/St is linked to the readiness of companies to invest real money in the implementation of IMS/St.

6. Conclusions

This systematic literature review provides good reasons to believe that Innovation Management Systems/Standards (IMS/St) have not been thoroughly discussed, especially regarding their impact on innovation performance and companies’ overall performance. This literature review used a well-structured and replicable methodology to find the main gaps in this research field, providing a better understanding of the directions and dimensions of the literature, and insight for future directions.
The main gaps are the lack of research in the following domains:
(a)
The methods of the parallel implementation of IMS/St and other management systems.
(b)
The impact of IMS/St on each factor of the companies’ performance.
(c)
The analysis of the IMSts.
(d)
The impact of IMS/St on each type of innovation.
(e)
The empirical study of the IMS/St in different sectors (services, industry, etc.).
Moreover, this paper contributes to the IMS/St arena from a theoretical point of view in two major ways.
(a)
Previous reviews of the literature have been updated and extended, even if this is the first review of the IMS/St literature.
(b)
It provides recommendations for future paths of research for IMS/St domains.
Apart from the above-mentioned theoretical contributions, this paper also provides some managerial implications that could help firms to put it into practice. The literature shows that IMS/St can boost various types of innovation, and that it can increase innovation capabilities and value creation through innovation activities, thus eventually creating more value for the organization. Managers can also benefit from the implementation of IMS/St on innovation and marketing performance, which has been validated in the literature. These could be useful to managers who intend to adopt IMS/St, and could support them in better understanding the implications and fields of application of IMS/St, and in developing a productive method to adopt one of these systems/standards.

Author Contributions

M.-C.I. and A.D. constructed the hypothesis and the idea of research. M.-C.I. collected the data, read the articles and categorized them. M.-C.I. drafted the manuscript. M.-C.I. took the responsibility in logical interpretation and conclusion of the results. A.D. supervised the research and reviewed the draft. The literature review was conducted by M.-C.I. under the supervision of A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. The chosen articles after the filtering steps.
Table A1. The chosen articles after the filtering steps.
Ref No.TitleYearPurpose
1A measurement scale for product innovation performance [68]2006Review the findings of the research aiming at envisaging and establishing accurate measurements for two main dimensions of the efficiency of the performance of product innovation in the framework of firm competition.
2A model for corporate renewal requirements for innovation management [49]2010Enhance the awareness of the constant renewal of the enterprise.
The study addresses the management of innovation, strategic renewal, organizational learning, and organizational change and adapting. It intends to provide a detailed viewpoint on these four different approaches to enterprise renewal.
3A Proposed Innovation Management System Framework: A Solution for Organizations Aimed for Obtaining Performance [31]2012In order to achieve the real success of the company, the authors suggest a model for the development of an innovation management system to address all significant aspects of the firm system.
4A systematic literature review on firm-level innovation management systems [7]2015
5Achieving Performance of Organization by Developing a Model of Innovation Management [33]2013Propose an innovation management framework for marketing innovation, product innovation, process innovation, network innovation, human resources advancement in innovation, administrative innovation, strategic innovation and vision and policy of innovation.
6An innovation management system to create growth in mature industrial technology firms [71]2015Suggest a multi-case study research framework that links critical components of the innovation system with growth performance.
7Application of the IUMSS methodology in an R&D-oriented nanotechnology setting [62]2010Examine the usability of management system standards (MSSs) in a nanotechnology setting geared towards R&D.
8Are National Systems of Innovation Converging ? the Case Are National Systems of Innovation Converging ? the Case of Cen/Ts 16555 [77]2015Study of recent efforts to unify European-level innovation management as a practical measure of the degree of internationalization of national innovation systems.
9Building knowledge for innovation management: The experience of the Umanlab research team [65]2012Assess the production conditions of methodological expertise for innovation management.
10Business Models for Corporate Innovation Management: Introduction of A Business Model Innovation Tool for Established Firms [22]2018Supply existing companies with Business Model Innovation Tool
11Chief technology officer’s views and behaviors in the dual innovation management system [82]2009Introduce the concepts of a Dual Innovation management system consisting of an innovation management system for managing the existing business areas and one for developing new business areas.
12Cognitive Approach in Development of Innovation Management Models for Company [30]2012Consider the ability to use the cognitive approach to develop CIM models and implement successful innovation management systems.
13Development and Operationalization of a Model of Innovation Management System As Part of an Integrated Quality-Environment-Safety System [47]2017Establish a relationship between innovation and unified management systems by suggesting, as part of an integrated quality, environmental and safety management system, an innovation management system model.
Innovation management and its correlation to other systems of management.
Provide an innovation management system model to companies as part of an integrated management system.
14Diffusion of the UNE166002 Innovation Management Standard: a forecast model approach towards Internationalization [44]2014Study the spread of UNE 166002 standard for innovation management in Spain and predict the model of a hypothetical future standard for innovation management internationally.
15Does innovation lead to performance? An empirical study of SMEs in Taiwan [69]2007Explore the nature and form of everyday innovation activities of Taiwan’s small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from a multi-dimensional perspective. In addition to discussing the relationship between innovation and organizational performance.
16Effects of innovation management system standardization on firms: evidence from text mining annual reports [45]2017Study of the effects of the standardization of values and attitudes concerning the innovation in Spanish companies.
17Emerging technologies-beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its implication for innovation management in Korea [86]2016Evaluate technological prediction within a framework for innovation management.
18R + D + I Teams. Bases for the development of R + D +I teams in companies in the Department of Quindío-Colombia [46]2016Study the possible integration of the public sector’s innovation and quality management practices.
19Fostering innovation with KM 2.0 [21]2010Develop a general framework that explains how the use of KM 2.0 technologies will benefit new generations of agile innovation processes.
20Importance of an Innovation Management System [74]2013Respond to two questions. Firstly, what are the benefits of implementing an RDI management based on a certified system? Secondly, what is the impact of implementing a certified innovation management system depending on a Portuguese sample?
21Innovation and ontologies: Structuring the early stages of innovation management [23]2009Analyse ontology as a modelling, analysis and comparison approach to the vague front-end of innovation management, especially the evaluation and selection of ideas.
22Innovation Management (Une-Cen/Ts 16555-1:2013) Applied To Superior Education: Integration of Disruptive Technologies for the Teaching of Chemistry [60]2015Introduce disruptive technologies integration in chemistry teaching from an innovation management perspective.
23Innovation management and Romanian SME’s [34]2010Understand the relation between innovation and SMEs development in Romania.
24Innovation management as part of the general management of the organization [24]2018Examine innovation management viewpoints and how companies can execute their innovation management practices and be prepared to face emerging challenges.
25Innovation Management in Global Competition and Competitive Advantage [35]2015Assess the effect of innovation management on the competitive advantage by stressing the value of management of innovation.
26Innovation management measurement: A review [4]2006Innovation measurement, conceptualized as a process, gives a way for a series of separate studies. The result is a lack of an overall framework that covers the various activities needed to convert the concepts into useful and marketable products. We’re attempting to address this gap.
27Innovation management processes, their internal organizational elements and contextual factors: An investigation in Brazil [67]2014Study of the relationship between internal organizational components and the influence of contextual variables associated with the innovation management and its challenges.
28Innovation management standards. A Comparative analysis [26]2011Analyse and compare the first two global standards of innovation management: Spain’s UNE 166002:2006 and United Kingdom’s BS 7000-1:2008.
29Innovation management system based on performance drivers: A study applied to the Brazilian electric power sector [36]2017Suggest an innovation management system powered by performance motivators.
30Innovation Management System of Ecuador [37]2015Clarify the emergence of Ecuador’s national system of innovation management and review the public policies and financial movements to enhance this system.
31Innovation management techniques and tools: Its impact on firm innovation performance [70]2018Discuss how the use of innovation management techniques (IMTS) affects the innovation performance of the company.
32Innovation programs models: Design and management [64]2019Establish technological capabilities and measure innovation program performance for value creation for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.
Develop innovation programs as organized processes that integrate innovation in product, service, processes, marketing and business models, while at the same time developing capabilities that allow the company’s leaders to take innovative action.
33Innovation types and innovation management practices in service companies [75]2007Examine the various types of innovation prevalent in UK service industry companies, the degree of innovation, and the innovation-related practices and their relationship with the firm’s performance.
34Integration of market pull and technology push in the corporate front end and innovation management-Insights from the German software industry [50]2009Present a conceptual framework focused on theory and can be applied in today’s corporate environment.
35Investigating the use of information technology in managing innovation: A case study from a university technology transfer office [53]2012Analyse the use of information technology for innovation management.
36ISO 50500 series innovation management: overview and potential usages in organizations [27]2017This paper discusses ISO 50500 series and motivates their anticipated effect on the creation of an innovation culture.
37IT-supported innovation management in the automotive supplier industry to drive idea generation and leverage innovation [54]2013Identify the basic scheme of the innovation management system aimed at promoting current automotive supplier innovation management.
Introduce a strategy through IT facilities to enhance innovation management.
38Management innovation through standardization: Consultants as standardizers of organizational practice [78]2012Claim that consultants-led management innovation is generally highly standardized.
39Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research [38]2019Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to have an insight into the current empirical research on management innovation.
40Management Innovation: Correcting Mistakes [39]2015Discuss the issues of Kazakhstan’s innovation development in view of the implementation of the programs approved in the industrial innovative development in the country.
41Management of Innovation Processes in Company [79]2015This study aims to pursue a thorough analysis of the literature and research realized to create a model for the management of the company’s innovation processes.
42Management of Research, Development and Innovation Systems and the New Np 4457 Standard: an Implementation [59]2008Explain Brisa’s innovation approach and the modification process carried out to satisfy all the criteria of the new standard.
43Managing the implementation of innovation strategies in public service organisation-how managers may support employees innovative work behavior [80]2019Identify which management strategies can be used by public managers to improve their employees’ innovative behaviour.
44MIM3: Methodology of Innovation Management for Obtaining the Level 3 of I2MM [32]2017Create a methodological framework for enhancing innovation maturity management in order to achieve level 3 of the Integrated Innovation Maturity Model (I2MM), taking into account a holistic methodological approach involving good management practices in the following management areas: (a) strategic management; (b) project management; (c) innovation models and methods; (d) innovation management standards, (e) knowledge management, and (f) financial management.
45Model for Systematic Innovation in Construction Companies [48]2014Define the methods and reasons for encouraging innovation in the construction firms.
46Models with graphical representation for innovation management: a literature review [8]2017Suggest the type of innovation management models.
47Organizational improvement through standardization of the innovation process in construction firms [55]2012Specify the innovation’s motivators, success factors, advantages, and challenges in a medium-sized construction firm with a standardized system of innovation management.
48Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance [72]2012Evaluate the relationship between organizational innovation and technical innovation capabilities and use a resource-based theoretical framework to study their effect on the firm’s performance.
49Organizational innovation management: An organization-wide perspective [84]2008Establish an organization-wide OIM framework and verify it.
50Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys [81]2008Evaluate and monitor organizational innovations by using large-scale surveys.
Identify and measure the organizational innovations in more detail by classifying them and comparing the different approaches for measuring them.
51Self-certification framework for technological innovation: A case study [61]2016Propose a framework for self-certification to assess technological innovation and approve quality products.
How and why the company’s efforts to introduce self-certification program will contribute to product and process innovation.
52Semantic Innovation Management System for the extended enterprise [87]2011Propose a Semantic Innovation Management System (SIMS) framework.
53Smart innovation management in product life cycle [40]2016Develop a framework of product smart innovation management that enables entrepreneurs and organisations to technically and rapidly implement the innovation process, as this framework would store expertise and previous innovation experiences with different products.
54Standardised innovation management systems: A case study of the Spanish standard UNE 166002:2006 [28]2011Examine the possibility of standardized innovation management.
55Standardization and Innovation Management Letter from Standardization [41]2017Is standardization an innovation driver or an obstacle?
56Standardization as open innovation: Two cases from the mobile industry [66]2009Present standardization as a neutral field of open innovation. The numerous open membership policies in the standardization initiatives result in different processes of open innovation.
57Standardizing innovation management: An opportunity for SMEs in the aerospace industry [58]2019Illustrate how real SMEs apply R+D+I management system by identifying and even testing the need to implement it.
58The challenge of integrating innovation and quality management practice [63]2016Study the possible integration of the public sector’s innovation and quality management practice.
59The impact of standardized innovation management systems on innovation capability and business performance: An empirical study [20]2016Study the impact of Standardized Innovation Management System (SIMS) on the firm’s innovation capability, innovation performance, and firm’s results.
60The need for innovation management and decision guidance in sustainable process design [56]2016Support the effective conversion of emerging technologies into innovation and industrial adoption within Europe. Innovation management and a new decision-making approach are advocated by the authors to enhance a holistic understanding of the economic, environmental and social challenges that new technologies need to respond to.
61The performance implications of the UNE 166.000 standardised innovation management system [76]2019Examine the impact of the implementation of Standardized Innovation Management System (SIMS) in compliance with Spanish standard UNE 166.000 on technological and administrative innovations and the companies’ performance.
62The Role of Management Innovation in Enabling Technological Process Innovation: An inter-organizational perspective [83]2013Address the gap that the role of management innovation in fostering technological process innovation in the inter-organizational context has not been fully explored.
63The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices [73]2009Innovation in management and its precedents and ramifications for individual enterprises.
64The standardization model of innovation: case of HTEs high-technology enterprises [57]2016This paper explores how to develop successful innovation management with standardization as an objective for HTEs.
65Toward a multistage, multilevel theory of innovation [42]2011Suggest a cross-level theory to explain the terms in the process of innovation and outline the main concepts and themes that emerge in innovation research through analysis levels.
66Toward a New Innovation Management Standard. Incorporation of the Knowledge Triangle Concept and Quadruple Innovation Helix Model into Innovation Management Standard [43]2017In perspective of the quadruple innovation helix model and the knowledge triangle concept, European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has established a critical review of European innovation management system as a technical specification.
67Towards an integrated approach to improving innovation management system of mining companies [29]2019Identify the key elements of the innovation management system aimed at preserving the company’s innovation practices, improving its innovation performance and enhancing its capacity to innovate, thus constantly expanding the opportunities for future innovation-oriented activities.
68Towards Systematic Business Model Innovation: Lessons from Product Innovation Management [25]2012Systematically examine the similarities and discrepancies between innovation model of product and business to evaluate the potential of the transfer of insights and best practices.
69Implementing an innovation management system at national research and development institute for industrial ecology–ECOIND [88]2020Presents the activities performed for the implementation of the innovation management system integrated into the existing quality, environmental, and occupational health and safety management system of the ECOIND institute
70Communities of learning as support for one knowledge and innovation management system: A case study [52]2020Proposes the creation of a community of learning as a space for innovation within the organization
71Does Standardized Innovation Management Systems Matter For Innovative Capability And Business Performance [2]2020Assessed whether standardized innovation management systems framework matter for innovative capability and business performance of companies.
72Making ‘hidden innovation’ visible: A case study of an innovation management system in health care [89]2020Finding a way to make ‘hidden innovations’ visible is important if innovation is to be managed strategically within and across hospitals
73Managing innovation in complicatedly organized facilities [51]2020To reveal the features and stages of innovation management in complicatedly organized facilities on the example of the city.

References

  1. Maier, D.; Vadastreanu, A.M.; Keppler, T.; Eidenmuller, T.; Maier, A.; Keppler, T.; Maier, D.; Vadastreanu, A.M. Innovation as a Part of an Existing Integrated Management System. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 26, 1060–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Kelvin, A. Does Standardized Innovation Management Systems Matter For Innovative Capability And Business Performance? Am. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2020, 3, 79–84. [Google Scholar]
  3. De Oliveira, M.J.C.; Coelho, D.A. Integrated Total Quality Management: Beyond Zero Defects Theory and towards Innovation. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2011, 22, 891–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Adams, R.; Bessant, J.; Phelps, R. Innovation Management Measurement: A Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2006, 8, 21–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. De Casanove, A.; Morel, L. Innovation Management Principles from Iso 56000 Series. In Proceedings of the International Association for Management of Technology Conference (IAMOT 2018), Birmingham, UK, 6 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
  6. International Standard Organization ISO. ISO 9004:2018—Managing for the Sustained Success of an Organization—A Quality Management Approach; International Standard Organization ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cortimiglia, M.N.; Delcourt, C.I.M.; De Oliveira, D.T.; Correa, C.H.; De Moura Ferreira Danilevicz, Â. A Systematic Literature Review on Firm-Level Innovation Management Systems. In Proceedings of the IAMOT 2015—24th International Association for Management of Technology Conference: Technology, Innovation and Management for Sustainable Growth, Cape Town, South Africa, 8–11 June 2015; pp. 1698–1713. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bagno, R.B.; Salerno, M.S.; da Silva, D.O. Models with Graphical Representation for Innovation Management: A Literature Review. R D Manag. 2017, 47, 637–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ordanini, A.; Rubera, G.; DeFillippi, R. The Many Moods of Inter-Organizational Imitation: A Critical Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Abatecola, G.; Mandarelli, G.; Poggesi, S. The Personality Factor: How Top Management Teams Make Decisions. A Literature Review. J. Manag. Gov. 2013, 17, 1073–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Keupp, M.M.; Palmié, M.; Gassmann, O. The Strategic Management of Innovation: A Systematic Review and Paths for Future Research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nielsen, S. Top Management Team Diversity: A Review of Theories and Methodologies. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rashman, L.; Withers, E.; Hartley, J. Organizational Learning and Knowledge in Public Service Organizations: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pukall, T.J.; Calabrò, A. The Internationalization of Family Firms: A Critical Review and Integrative Model. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Adams, R.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J.; Denyer, D.; Overy, P. Sustainability-Oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bakker, R.M. Taking Stock of Temporary Organizational Forms: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Piccarozzi, M.; Aquilani, B.; Gatti, C. Industry 4.0 in Management Studies: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2018, 3821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Nabi, G.; Liñán, F.; Fayolle, A.; Krueger, N.; Walmsley, A. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2017, 16, 277–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Mir, M.; Casadesús, M.; Petnji, L.H. The Impact of Standardized Innovation Management Systems on Innovation Capability and Business Performance: An Empirical Study. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2016, 41, 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ribiere, V.M.; Tuggle, F.D.D. Fostering Innovation with KM 2.0. Vine 2010, 40, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Trapp, M.; Voigt, K.I.; Brem, A. Business Models for Corporate Innovation Management: Introduction of A Business Model Innovation Tool for Established Firms. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2018, 22, 1850007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bullinger, A.C. Innovation and Ontologies: Structuring the Early Stages of Innovation Management; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 1–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Irmer, S.; Murswieck, R.; Kurth, B.L.; Floricel, T.B. Innovation Management as Part of the General Management of the Organization. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Manag. Res. 2018, 2, 2404–2412. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bucherer, E.; Eisert, U.; Gassmann, O. Towards Systematic Business Model Innovation: Lessons from Product Innovation Management. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2012, 21, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mir-Mauri, M.; Casadesús-Fa, M.; Mir, M.; Casadesus, M. Innovation Management Standards. A Comparative Analysis. Dyna 2011, 86, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. De Casanove, A.; Morel, L.; Negny, S. ISO 50500 Series Innovation Management: Overview and Potential Usages in Organizations. In Proceedings of the ISPIM Innovation Symposium 2017, Vienna, Austria, 18–21 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Casadesús, M.; Mir, M. Standardised Innovation Management Systems: A Case Study of the Spanish Standard UNE 166002:2006. Innovar 2011, 21, 171–187. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lazarenko, Y.; Garafonova, O.; Grigashkina, S.; Verezomska, I. Towards an Integrated Approach to Improving Innovation Management System of Mining Companies. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 105, 04042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Karayev, R.; Naghiyev, M. Cognitive Approach in Development of Innovation Management Models for Company. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Maier, A.; Brad, S.; Fulea, M.; Nicoar, D.; Maier, D. A Proposed Innovation Management System Framework—A Solution for Organizations Aimed for Obtaining Performance. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Eng. 2012, 6, 3235–3239. [Google Scholar]
  32. Alfaro, E. MIM3: Methodology of Innovation Management for Obtaining the Level 3 of I2MM. Public Enterp. Half Yrly. J. 2017, 23, 31–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Maier, A.; Olaru, M.; Maier, D.; Marinescu, M. Achieving Performance of Organization by Developing a Model of Innovation Management. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Brussels, Belgium, 19–20 September 2013; Volume 2, pp. 731–738. [Google Scholar]
  34. Popescu, D.M.; Robescu, V.O.; Velter, V.; Stegaroiu, I.; Popa, G.; Goldbach, D. Innovation Management and Romanian SME’s. In Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International Conference on Recent Advances in Business Administration, Cambridge, UK, 20–22 February 2010; pp. 149–153. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dereli, D.D. Innovation Management in Global Competition and Competitive Advantage. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 195, 1365–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. De Moura Ferreira Danilevicz, Â.; Correa, C.H. Innovation Management System Based on Performance Drivers: A Study Applied to the Brazilian Electric Power Sector. In Proceedings of the 67th Annual Conference and Expo of the Institute of Industrial Engineers 2017, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 20–23 May 2017; pp. 1894–1899. [Google Scholar]
  37. Carpio, C.R.; Figueroa, W.E.; Alvarado, M.P. Innovation Management System of Ecuador. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 195, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Khosravi, P.; Newton, C.; Rezvani, A. Management Innovation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Past Decades of Research. Eur. Manag. J. 2019, 37, 694–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sagiyeva, R.; Alenova, K.; Galimakair, A.; Zhuparova, A. Management Innovation: Correcting Mistakes. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 23, 856–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Waris, M.M.; Sanin, C.; Szczerbicki, E. Smart Innovation Management in Product Life Cycle. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 429, pp. 183–192. [Google Scholar]
  41. Caetano, I. Standardization and Innovation Management. J. Innov. Manag. 2017, 5, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sears, G.J.; Baba, V.V. Toward a Multistage, Multilevel Theory of Innovation. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 2011, 28, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mavroeidis, V.; Tarnawska, K. Toward a New Innovation Management Standard. Incorporation of the Knowledge Triangle Concept and Quadruple Innovation Helix Model into Innovation Management Standard. J. Knowl. Econ. 2017, 8, 653–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mir, M.; Pages, J.; Marimon, F. Diffusion of the UNE166002 Innovation Management Standard: A Forecast Model Approach towards Internationalization. TMQ Technol. Methodol. Qual. 2014, 5, 106–125. [Google Scholar]
  45. Garechana, G.; Río-Belver, R.; Bildosola, I.; Salvador, M.R. Effects of Innovation Management System Standardization on Firms: Evidence from Text Mining Annual Reports. Scientometrics 2017, 111, 1987–1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zartha Sossa, J.W.; Grajales López, C.A.; Moreno Sarta, J.F.; Tobón, M.L.; Oviedo Lopera, J.C.; Escobar, P.A.; Alzate, B.A.; Rubiano Gonzalez, J.A.; Reveiz, R.E.; Guarnizo Gómez, C.A.; et al. R + D + i Teams. Bases for the Development of R + D + i Teams in Companies in the Department of Quindío—Colombia. Espacios 2016, 37, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  47. Maier, D.; Sven-Joachim, I.; Fortmüller, A.; Maier, A. Development and Operationalization of a Model of Innovation Management System As Part of an Integrated Quality-Environment-Safety System. Amfiteatru Econ. 2017, 19, 302–314. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pellicer, E.; Yepes, V.; Correa, C.L.; Alarcón, L.F. Model for Systematic Innovation in Construction Companies. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Apilo, T. A Model for Corporate Renewal Requirements for Innovation Management. Ph.D. Thesis, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  50. Brem, A.; Voigt, K.I. Integration of Market Pull and Technology Push in the Corporate Front End and Innovation Management-Insights from the German Software Industry. Technovation 2009, 29, 351–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nabiullina, K.R.; Bystrova, D.A.; Toriia, R.A.; Kovaleva, N.V.; Borisova, L.V.; Nesmeianova, I.A.; Kirakosyan, S.A. Managing Innovation in Complicatedly Organized Facilities. J. Environ. Treat. Tech. 2020, 8, 185–190. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gutiérrez, Á.; Lleras, E.; Díaz, J. Communities of Learning as Support for One Knowledge and Innovation Management System: A Case Study. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rampersad, G.; Plewa, C.; Troshani, I. Investigating the Use of Information Technology in Managing Innovation: A Case Study from a University Technology Transfer Office. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2012, 29, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Neumann, M.; Rie, A.; Brissaud, D. IT-Supported Innovation Management in the Automotive Supplier Industry to Drive Idea Generation and Leverage Innovation. J. Softw. Evol. Process. 2013, 25, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pellicer, E.; Yepes, V.; Correa, C.L.; Alarcón, L.F. Organizational Improvement through Standardization of the Innovation Process in Construction Firms. Eng. Manag. J. 2012, 24, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kralisch, D.; Ott, D.; Lapkin, A.A.; Yaseneva, P.; De Soete, W.; Jones, M.; Minkov, N.; Finkbeiner, M. The Need for Innovation Management and Decision Guidance in Sustainable Process Design. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 172, 2374–2388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fang, F.; Dickson, K.; Wang, D. The Standardization Model of Innovation: Case of High-Technology Enterprises. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2016, 10, 102–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cerezo-Narváez, A.; García-Jurado, D.; González-Cruz, M.C.; Pastor-Fernández, A.; Otero-Mateo, M.; Ballesteros-Pérez, P. Standardizing Innovation Management: An Opportunity for SMEs in the Aerospace Industry. Processes 2019, 7, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Canas, T.; Gomes, J. Management of Research, Development and Innovation Systems and the New Np 4457 Standard: An Implementation. Res. Dev. + Inov. 2008, 329–337. [Google Scholar]
  60. Barandika, G.; Beitia, J.I.; Ruiz-de-Larramendi, I.; Fidalgo, M.-L. Innovation Management (Une-Cen/Ts 16555-1:2013) Applied To Superior Education: Integration of Disruptive Technologies for the Teaching of Chemistry. In Proceedings of the Edulearn15: 7th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain, 6–8 July 2015; pp. 2255–2260. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kim, D.Y.; Hwang, Y.H. Self-Certification Framework for Technological Innovation: A Case Study. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2014, 31, 751–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Law, N. Application of the IUMSS Methodology in an R&D-Oriented Nanotechnology Setting. Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  63. Palm, K.; Lilja, J.; Wiklund, H. The Challenge of Integrating Innovation and Quality Management Practice. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2016, 27, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Proença, J.J.C. Innovation Programs Models: Design and Management. Rev. Estud. Pesqui. Adm. 2019, 3, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chanal, V. Building Knowledge for Innovation Management: The Experience of the Umanlab Research Team. Vine 2012, 42, 396–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Grøtnes, E. Standardization as Open Innovation: Two Cases from the Mobile Industry. Inf. Technol. People 2009, 22, 367–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nagano, M.S.; Stefanovitz, J.P.; Vick, T.E. Innovation Management Processes, Their Internal Organizational Elements and Contextual Factors: An Investigation in Brazil. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2014, 33, 63–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Alegre, J.; Lapiedra, R.; Chiva, R. A Measurement Scale for Product Innovation Performance. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2006, 9, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yeh-Yun Lin, C.; Yi-Ching Chen, M. Does Innovation Lead to Performance? An Empirical Study of SMEs in Taiwan. Manag. Res. News 2007, 30, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Albors-Garrigos, J.; Igartua, J.I.; Peiro, A. Innovation Management Techniques and Tools: Its Impact on Firm Innovation Performance. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2018, 22, 1850051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Badrinas, J.; Vilà, J. An Innovation Management System to Create Growth in Mature Industrial Technology Firms. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2015, 7, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Camisón, C.; Villar-López, A. Organizational Innovation as an Enabler of Technological Innovation Capabilities and Firm Performance. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 67, 2891–2902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mol, M.J.; Birkinshaw, J. The Sources of Management Innovation: When Firms Introduce New Management Practices. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 1269–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Peetri, M.; Xavier, A. Importance of an Innovation Management System; Universidade do Porto: Porto, Portugal, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  75. Oke, A. Innovation Types and Innovation Management Practices in Service Companies. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2007, 27, 564–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Martínez-Costa, M.; Jimenez-Jimenez, D.; Castro-del-Rosario, Y.D.P. The Performance Implications of the UNE 166.000 Standardised Innovation Management System. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2018, 22, 281–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Clausen, T.; Elvestad, C. Are National Systems of Innovation Converging? The Case of Cen/Ts 16555. In Proceedings of the DRUID15, Rome, Italy, 15–17 June 2015; p. 21. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wright, C.; Sturdy, A.; Wylie, N. Management Innovation through Standardization: Consultants as Standardizers of Organizational Practice. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 652–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lendel, V.; Hittmár, Š.; Siantová, E. Management of Innovation Processes in Company. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 23, 861–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Phil-Thingvad, S.; Klausen, K.K. Managing The Implementation of Innovation Strategies in Public Service Organisation—How Managers May Support Employees Innovative Work Behaviour. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2019, 2050074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Armbruster, H.; Bikfalvi, A.; Kinkel, S.; Lay, G. Organizational Innovation: The Challenge of Measuring Non-Technical Innovation in Large-Scale Surveys. Technovation 2008, 28, 644–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Suzuki, Y. Chief Technology Officer’s Views and Behaviors in the Dual Innovation Management System. In Proceedings of the PICMET: Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 2–6 August 2009; pp. 916–922. [Google Scholar]
  83. Hollen, R.M.A.; Van Den Bosch, F.A.J.; Volberda, H.W. The Role of Management Innovation in Enabling Technological Process Innovation: An Inter-Organizational Perspective. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2013, 10, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wong, S.Y.; Chin, K.S. Organizational Innovation Management: An Organization-Wide Perspective. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2007, 107, 1290–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Karlsson, M. Towards an International Framework for Innovation Management; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  86. An, H.J.; Ahn, S.J. Emerging Technologies-beyond the Chasm: Assessing Technological Forecasting and Its Implication for Innovation Management in Korea. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 102, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ning, K.; O’Sullivan, D. Semantic Innovation Management System for the Extended Enterprise. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Technology Management Conference, ICE 2005, Munich, Germany, 20–22 June 2005; p. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  88. Criste, I.V. Implementing an innovation management system at national research and development institute for industrial ecology—ECOIND. Rom. J. Ecol. Environ. Chem. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Saidi, T.; Thune, T.M.; Bugge, M. Making ‘Hidden Innovation’ Visible? A Case Study of an Innovation Management System in Health Care. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 08151 g001 550
Figure 1. Number of articles per year.
Figure 1. Number of articles per year.
Sustainability 13 08151 g001
Sustainability 13 08151 g002 550
Figure 2. Geographic scope analysis.
Figure 2. Geographic scope analysis.
Sustainability 13 08151 g002
Table
Table 1. Steps in filtering the articles.
Table 1. Steps in filtering the articles.
FilterDescriptionGoogle ScholarMendeley ElsevierStep Total
Step 1Articles with selected keywords532021727476
Step 2After applying release date and peer review restrictions 599
Step 3Removing the duplicates 431
Step 4After reading the title and abstract, relevant articles remained 68
Step 5Citation tracking 5
Total73
Table
Table 2. Journals, conferences and article numbers.
Table 2. Journals, conferences and article numbers.
Journal NameImpact Factor 2019Case StudyTheoreticalSurveyTotal
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management--3003
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences--0303
Technovation0.7562013
European Journal of Innovation Management1.6761012
International Journal of Innovation Management2.1131102
Procedia Economics and Finance0.6290112
Vine 1102
IEEE International Technology Management0.5241001
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 1001
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences4.6911001
Chinese Management Studies1.60112
Creativity and Innovation Management1.6670101
R and D Management3.7270011
Dyna (Spain)1.2630101
Edulearn15: 7th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies----1001
Engineering Management Journal----0101
European Management Review----0011
International Association for Management of Technology Conference,----0101
Industrial Management and Data Systems----0011
Information Technology and People0.9960101
Innovar----0101
Innovation and Ontologies: Structuring the Early Stages of Innovation Management7.60101
International Journal of Advanced Engineering and Management Research4.1110101
International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering----0101
International Journal of Innovation Science----0011
International Journal of Management Reviews4.0280101
International Journal of Operations and Production Management6.3950011
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management2.7340011
ISPIM Innovation Symposium3.3470101
Journal of Business Research----0011
Journal of Cleaner Production----0011
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management1.3050101
Journal of Innovation Management Caetano JIM----1001
Journal of Software: Evolution and Process----1001
Journal of the Knowledge Economy--0101
Management Research News--0011
PICMET: Portland International Centre for Management of Engineering and Technology--0011
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship--0101
Processes1.9631001
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses--1001
Public Enterprise Half-Yearly Journal--0011
R and D Management2.9081001
Recent Advances in Business Administration 0101
Revista Estudos e Pesquisas em Administração--1001
Scientometrics5.4251001
Technological Forecasting and Social Change--0011
TMQ Techniques, Methodologies and Quality--1001
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence2.771001
VTT Publications0.7311001
Espacios3.8150000
Research Policy1.8670000
American International Journal of Business Management (AIJBM)6.6060011
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management--1001
Systems Research and Behavioral Science2.1811001
Romanian Journal of Ecology & Environmental Chemistry--1001
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques01001
Table
Table 3. Theoretical studies (n = 24).
Table 3. Theoretical studies (n = 24).
TitleYearModelMain FindingsModel’s Added ValueStudy Classification
A Proposed Innovation Management System Framework–A Solution for Organizations Aimed for Obtaining Performance20121New model“Identifying the degree of innovation in any field of the enterprise at any time
Establishing an environment in which innovation includes every stakeholder as a natural activity
Concept analysis suggests ways to enhance ideas and boost the possible added value offered” [31]		Theoretical
A Systematic Literature Review on Firm-Level Innovation Management Systems2015 “Proposes an interpretative framework of innovation management system and provides recommendations on how the proposed model can be used for implementation.” [7] Theoretical: literature analysis
Achieving Performance of Organization by Developing a Model of Innovation Management20131New model“Identifying the degree of innovation in any field of the enterprise at any time
Establishing an environment in which innovation includes every stakeholder as a natural activity
Concept analysis suggests ways to enhance ideas and boost the possible added value offered” [33]		Theoretical
Business Models for Corporate Innovation Management: Introduction of a Business Model Innovation Tool for Established Firms20181“BMI’s management approach differs from the approach needed for product or process innovation.” [22]“Recognizing concepts, activities or projects in the company, eventually helping to achieve market success” [22]Theoretical: literature analysis
Cognitive Approach in Development of Innovation Management Models for a Company20121“The models can determine the innovative development concept of the company under challenging conditions of shifting resources and innovation-based economies.” [30] Theoretical
Fostering Innovation with KM 2.020101 “Customers and other people having roles in the innovation process
Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 technologies as significant enablers” [21]		Theoretical, data analysis
Innovation and Ontologies: Structuring the Early Stages of Innovation Management20091 “Action-oriented consequences of methodology execution in business reality.” [23]Theoretical, data analysis
Innovation Management and Romanian SME’s2010 “The continuous incremental innovations made every day by employees will provide the company with the consistent growth it needs.
Sustained innovation is generated by enabling the creativity of employees and teaching them how to identify unconventional opportunities.” [34]		 Theoretical: literature analysis
Innovation Management as Part of the General Management of the Organization2018 “Innovation Management System enables businesses to create and execute strategic plans.
Good innovation management provides an advantage with a major effect.
Innovative projects, with an average of around 20%, contribute 6 to 30% of the increased revenue.
Innovative management, with an average of almost 10%, can also generate savings.” [24]		 Theoretical: data analysis
Innovation Management in Global Competition and Competitive Advantage2015 “Innovation management, including knowledge, technology, staff, vision, leadership and organizational structure, is a multidimensional concept. All dimensions should be controlled by appropriate strategies in order to be efficient.” [35] Theoretical: literature analysis
Innovation Management Measurement: A Review20061 “Practitioners will be allowed to evaluate their activities in the field of innovation management, identify gaps, shortcomings or defects, and improve possible areas of extraction where innovation is only nominally used in their processes and identify areas where interest and resources could be focused.” [4]Theoretical: literature analysis
Innovation Management Standards: A Comparative Analysis2011 Theoretical
Innovation Management System Based on Performance Drivers: A Study Applied to The Brazilian Electric Power Sector2017 “Innovation management system intents to strengthen/develop: (I) transparency in decision-making process of innovation, (II) innovation culture, by innovative thinking of the employees, (III) strategic business alignment of projects, (IV) risk mitigation of financial investment on projects, and (V) profit leverage through new creative solutions.” [36] Theoretical: literature analysis
Innovation Management System of Ecuador2015 “Domestic innovation process (financing, research and results) has not been successfully demonstrated by National Innovation System.” [37] Theoretical: literature analysis
ISO 50,500 Series Innovation Management: Overview and Potential Usages in Organizations2017 “Through the use of these documents, organizations can raise their awareness of the value of innovation management, broaden innovation capacities, and eventually generate more value for the company and its stakeholders.” [27]
For innovative organizations, using a systematic approach to handling innovation is an essential step.		 Theoretical
Management Innovation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Past Decades of Research2019 “Innovation management is positively associated with organizational size, information management, organizational learning, overall performance of the company, and financial performance.” [38] Theoretical: literature analysis
Management Innovation: Correcting Mistakes2015 “A national agency, Innovative Development Office, must be established in order to simplify the national innovation policy and save resources.” [39] Theoretical: literature analysis
MIM3: Methodology of Innovation Management for Obtaining the Level 3 Of I2MM20171 “Good practices in the following fields of management: (a) strategic management, (b) project management, (c) innovation models and innovation methods, (d) innovation management standards, (e) knowledge management, and (f) financial management.” [32]Theoretical
Models with Graphical Representation for Innovation Management: A Literature Review2017 Classify innovation management models, and illustrate the model’s biases, gaps, strengths and weaknesses [8] Theoretical: literature analysis
Smart Innovation Management in Product Life Cycle2016 “Based on the previous innovative experiences of similar products, innovation can be achieved on technological grounds.
Current decision-making events may be preserved for future use in an organized manner.” [40]		 Theoretical
Standardization and Innovation Management2017 “Innovation Management Standards can be used as management tools to enable information absorption by organizations, support stakeholders in speeding up their distribution and adoption, and create dynamic capabilities to sustain competitiveness and generate value.” [41] Theoretical
Toward a Multistage, Multilevel Theory of Innovation2011 “Innovation is a multi-level phenomenon that emerges through individual creative efforts which, at the individual, group, organization, and social levels, are converted into innovative outcomes that emphasize the importance of organizational behavior in innovation.” [42] Theoretical
Toward a New Innovation Management Standard: Incorporation of the Knowledge Triangle Concept and Quadruple Innovation Helix Model into Innovation Management Standards2017 “European Innovation Management Technical Specifications are tools for transforming concepts and research findings into innovations carried out by trained and motivated workers.
Technical specifications of Innovation Management System (IMS) should be paired with Knowledge Triangle and Quadruple Helix approaches in order to prevent isolating the organization from carrying out innovation activities. ” [43]		 Theoretical
Towards an Integrated Approach to Improving the Innovation Management Systems of Mining Companies2019 “A framework for defining the key management areas that mining companies should consider in order to enhance their capacity for innovation and increase the efficiency of innovation.” Theoretical
Table
Table 4. Qualitative studies (n = 29).
Table 4. Qualitative studies (n = 29).
TitleYearModelMain FindingsModel’s Added ValueStudy ClassificationSamples Size
A Model for Corporate Renewal Requirements for Innovation Management20101New modelUtilization and exploration methods from the front end of the innovation process in order to be shared at the same stage of implementation, and continuing to create a shared understanding of the vision and the use information and resourcesCase study5
Application of the IUMSS Methodology in an R&D-Oriented Nanotechnology Setting2010 R&D standards are consistent with ISO 9001:2000 and maintain R&D&I MS Case study1
Building Knowledge for Innovation Management: The Experience of the Umanlab Research Team2012 Different requirements within the rigor significance dilemma that affect information production. Case study1
Development and Operationalization of a Model of Innovation Management System as Part of an Integrated Quality-Environment-Safety System2017 To have a positive impact on the company’s capacity and experience in innovation actions and to increase the effectiveness of innovation that directly affects the organization performance. Data analysis122 out of 500
Diffusion of the UNE166002 Innovation Management Standard: A Forecast Model Approach to Internationalization2014 The diffusion of UNE 166,002 follows a logistic S-shaped curve.
It would approach 85,000 European certificates and, if it were an ISO standard, more than 1,200,000.		 Data analysis
Effects of Innovation Management System Standardization on Firms: Evidence from Text Mining Annual Reports2017 ‘‘Trust’’ is the predominant emotion associated with the
innovation.
The increasing relevance of emerging technologies in the company’s innovative efforts and the declining of older technologies.		 Data analysis243
Bases for the Development of R+D+I Teams in Companies in the Department of Quindío, Colombia2016 It is possible to process innovation and quality management in parallel and promote each other, rather than to disadvantage each other. Case study, data analysis2 cases
460 data
Innovation Management (Une-Cen/Ts 16555-1:2013) Applied to Superior Education: Integration of Disruptive Technologies for the Teaching of Chemistry2015 Techniques in innovation management can be used to organize high-level educational activities that can have a beneficial effect on student learning and achievement. Case study1
Innovation Management Processes, their Internal Organizational Elements and Contextual Factors: An Investigation in Brazil2014 Failure to assess innovation systems as a homogeneous maturity block and orientation towards innovative performance.
Managing uncertainty and risk and cross-functional coordination challenges are the core challenges of innovation.		 Case study4
Innovation Programs Models: Design and Management2019 Innovation in products and services is focused on four axes: environment scanning, interactive learning, gamification, lean thinking, and design thinking.
Although business model innovation based on the same processes and methodologies needs additional capabilities and resources, all of them concentrate on the business context, consumers as value co-creators, digital channels, and ecosystems.		 Case study8 service company
Integration of Market Pull and Technology Push in the Corporate Front End and Innovation Management: Insights from the German Software Industry20091It cannot be assumed that technology promotion and market pull are the right or wrong way to sustainable innovation.
The effect of “regulatory drive” is also important.		Company’s market demands, market pull and technology promotion activities to integrate technology and innovation management are leading to incremental and radical product and process innovations.Case study1
Investigating the Use of Information Technology in Managing Innovation: A Case Study from a University Technology Transfer Office20121 Development based on the integration of technology adoption, marketing and innovation managementCase study1
IT-Supported Innovation Management in the Automotive Supplier Industry to Drive Idea Generation and Leverage Innovation20131 A model focused on the combination of stakeholder’s concept and information miningCase study
Management of Research, Development and Innovation Systems and the New Np 4457 Standard: An Implementation2008 Implementation of SIMS Np 4457 supports value creation by innovation activities. Case study1
Model for Systematic Innovation in Construction Companies2014 It is not obvious that a correlation exists between the implementation of an innovation management system and the enhancement of the competitiveness of construction companies. This condition may be due to the fact that these processes were in the early stages of implementation when the study was conducted.The model tested and its result approved by case studyCase study, data analysis24
Organizational Improvement through Standardization of the Innovation Process in Construction Firms20121Innovation management can be standardized, which can lead to the company being improved in an organizational way. At the same time, this improvement promotes organizational problem-solving regularly, and enhances technical skills, information management, business profit and customer satisfaction.Providing the managers with guidance so that they can innovate systematicallyCase study1
Self-Certification Framework for Technological Innovation: A Case Study2016 Self-certification program success depends on the ability of the company to manage processes.
It is essential to develop an internally guided motivation and ensure the firm commitment of the top management.
It has a positive effect on performance in innovation and marketing.		 Case study1
Semantic Innovation Management System for the Extended Enterprise2011 The effectiveness and possibility of using semantic web technologies to enhance innovation management. Case study1
Standardized Innovation Management Systems: A Case Study of the Spanish Standard UNE 166002: 20062011 The standard facilitates innovation and improvement of internal transition and technology assimilation procedures, thus promoting improved outcomes of innovative products and services. Case study1
Standardization as Open Innovation: Two Cases from the Mobile Industry2009 In neutral areas such as standardization, open innovation can occur. Case study2
Standardizing Innovation Management: An Opportunity for SMEs in the Aerospace Industry2019 Standardized innovation management would increase the competitiveness of the company and enable it to continue to improve over time by better managing all its R+D+I activities, allowing it access to a range of preferential advantages (tax deductions, special tenders, additional funding lines, etc.). Case study1
The Challenge of Integrating Innovation and Quality Management Practice2016 Quality management practices are contributing to a decline in innovation space.
It is possible to process innovation and quality management in parallel and to promote each other rather than disadvantage each other.
Organizational culture and HR management analysis and development to build more fertile ground for an innovative environment, and to pay more attention to the structures and procedures of addressing innovation issues on a daily basis.
By paying more attention to innovation management, superior consumer value can be achieved.		 Case study2
The Need for Innovation Management and Decision Guidance in Sustainable Process Design20161 Supporting decision-making of innovative sustainable process design and encouraging development teams to set their own most informative requirements, appropriate approaches, and main objectivesCase study2
The Standardization Model of Innovation: Case of High-Technology Enterprises20161Three key elements of innovation need to be stressed in standardizing the innovation model: strategic innovation planning, internal R&D practices and external cooperative innovation.
It should be noted that IPR management, market focus and cooperation across industry chains are important.		Note IPR management, consumer focus and cooperation along industry chains for HTEs (high-technology companies)Case study1
Towards Systematic Business Model Innovation: Lessons from Product Innovation Management20121A more systematic and comprehensive approach may be effective as it expands the best practices already developed for product innovation management.Consider and integrate the degree of innovation (incremental or radical).Case study11
Implementing an Innovation Management System at the National Research and Development Institute for Industrial Ecology (ECOIND)2020 Identify, introduce and describe the processes related to innovation and establish the interaction of these processes with the other processes of the management system Case study1
Communities of Learning as Support for one Knowledge and Innovation Management System: A Case Study20201Practice methodology that fosters the creation and strengthening of a community of learning composed of mentors and apprentices within the organizationCreation of a community of learning as a space for innovation within the organizationCase study1
Making “Hidden Innovation” Visible: A Case Study of an Innovation Management System in Health Care2020 The system has contributed to some extent to making hidden innovations more visible, and to enabling sharing and learning not only among the hospitals, but also with external partners. Case study1
Managing Innovation in Complicatedly Organized Facilities20201New sources and ways of incorporating innovations into the existing system of urban planning, as well as transformation of the innovation management system itself by taking into account the interests of the city’s stakeholders.The system-based nature allows to present in detail the structure of the object in the aggregate of all connections; its synergism determines the possibility of multidimensional development of the object and their management in the conditions of not only external but also internal innovations.Case study1
Table
Table 5. Group C1: experimental quantitative studies/IMS and performance (n = 12).
Table 5. Group C1: experimental quantitative studies/IMS and performance (n = 12).
TitleYearMain FindingsModel’s Added ValueStudy ClassificationSample SizeSubject
A Measurement Scale for Product Innovation Performance2006The operational measures developed here satisfy the criteria for unidimensionality, reliability, and validity. Survey132 out of 253 targetedPerformance
Do Standardized Innovation Management Systems Matter for Innovative Capability and Business Performance?2020Significant connections exist between standardized innovation management systems, innovative capability and business performance. Survey217Performance
An Innovation Management System to Create Growth in Mature Industrial Technology Firms2015New model Penetrate the glass ceiling of exploitation and establish new undisputed growth flows.
A systematic process to establish innovation streams outside of the existing comfortable exploitation region can be followed by management teams in mature technology industries.
Highly important in the efforts to pursue profitable growth.		Interview-survey28, from 6 firmsPerformance
Does Innovation Lead to Performance? An Empirical Study of SMEs in Taiwan2007Innovation is poorly related to company sales, although administrative innovation has become the most important element in explaining sales rather than technological innovation. Survey763 out of 877Performance
Emerging Technologies Beyond the Chasm: Assessing Technological Forecasting and Its Implications for Innovation Management in Korea2016There is a gap in the process of commercialization.
Interaction between innovation practitioners is about overcoming the gap.
Government support is quite helpful.		 Survey218 out of 256Inn-Performance
Importance of an Innovation Management System2013When the company has not yet reached a reasonable size and is willing to certify IMS, this is often overloading it.
Commercialization and diffusion for product/service and innovation achievements benefit even more from reinforcing a formal innovation management system when IMS organizational strategy of innovation is applied.		 Survey4 + 5 certifiedPerformance
Innovation Management Techniques and Tools: Its Impact on Firm Innovation Performance2018Using IMTs in the companies could predict their innovation success, particularly when considering incremental innovation results. Survey 566 Performance- management
Innovation Types and Innovation Management Practices in Service Companies2007In the telecommunications and financial sectors, product innovation is emphasized more than in the transport and retail sectors, while service innovation is emphasized more in the retail and transport sectors.
Radical and incremental innovations are related to innovation performance.
Radical innovations are related to innovation management practices.		 Survey47% of 214Performance
Organizational Innovation as an Enabler of Technological Innovation Capabilities and Firm Performance2012Development of technological innovation capabilities is encouraged by organizational innovation. Organizational innovation and products and processes technological capabilities will contribute to outstanding company performance. Survey144Performance
The Impact of Standardized Innovation Management Systems on Innovation Capability and Business Performance: An Empirical Study2016Innovation management Standards have a strong positive relation with the company’s Innovation Capability (IC) and Business Performance (BP). Survey1000Performance
The Performance Implications of the UNE 166.000 Standardized Innovation Management System2019All types of innovation and its achievements are endorsed by the implementation of SIMS.
The relationship between administrative and technological development is positive.		 Survey200Performance- St
The Sources of Management Innovation: When Firms Introduce New Management Practices2009Management innovation is the product of the internal context of the company and the external quest for new information, as management innovation correlated with the co-occurrence of “context and search” is negatively affected.
Management innovation positively affects company performance in the form of subsequent productivity growth.		 Survey3668 out of 8172Performance
Table
Table 6. Group C2: experimental quantitative studies/IM standards or IM systems (n = 8).
Table 6. Group C2: experimental quantitative studies/IM standards or IM systems (n = 8).
TitleYearModelMain FindingsStudy ClassificationStudy PurposeSample SizeSubject
Are National Systems of Innovation Converging? The Case of Cen/Ts 165552015 The standard of innovation management is ineffective due to the lack of consensus among European countriesInterviewsAnalyze the recent efforts to standardize innovation management at European level as a practical test of the degree of internationalization of national innovation systems33Standard
Chief Technology Officer’s Views and Behaviors in the Dual Innovation Management System2009 Successful CTOs strive actively to obtain technical information and information about their companies’ social environment.
Consider and act based on their philosophy and knowledge.
Show great attention in nurturing human resources.		SurveyDescribe the concept of Dual Innovation Management System, consisting of two innovation management systems, one for processing existing business areas and the other for developing new business areas50Management
Management Innovation Through Standardization: Consultants as Standardizers of Organizational Practice2012 When agendas and methods are standardized, the management innovation process within the organizations may have a significant effect, in other words, the more standardized company innovation processes are, the more incremental innovations take place in the organization rather than more exploratory and revolutionary changes Standardization is a key feature of the organizationsSurveyArgue that consultant-led management innovation is usually highly standardized90 in 30 organizationManagement
Management of Innovation Processes in Company20151Successful realization of the innovation processes requires a supportive environment for innovation creation.SurveyAnalyze the literature and research in detail to create a model for the company’s innovation processes management321Management
Managing the Implementation of Innovation Strategies in Public Service Organizations—how Managers May Support Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior2019 Understanding innovation strategies, encouraging management, risk tolerance culture and autonomy are valuable innovation management tools Strategic management communication and economic rewards are not related to any stage of innovative work behaviorSurveyIdentify which management strategies public managers can use to enhance their employees’ innovative behavior.1405Management
Organizational Innovation Management: An Organization-Wide Perspective20071 SurveyDevelop and validate an organization-wide OIM framework.201 out of 2100Management
Organizational Innovation: The Challenge of Measuring Non-Technical Innovation in Large-Scale Surveys2008 Four key reflections for assessing organizational innovation: (1) Complexity of organizational innovation; (2) Life cycle of organizational innovation; (3) Extent of use of organizational innovation; (4) Quality of organizational innovation.SurveyMeasure and monitor organizational innovations by large-scale surveys.
Define and measure the organizational innovations in more detail by classifying them and comparing the different approaches of measuring them.		1450Management
The Role of Management Innovation in Enabling Technological Process Innovation: An Inter-Organizational Perspective2013 Explain the interlinkages of the two innovations types over time.
Management innovation theory extended by conceptualizing management innovation in an inter-organizational context.		SurveyAddress the gap that the role of management innovation in promoting technological process innovation in the inter-organizational context has not been fully explored. Management
Table
Table 7. Articles by research subject.
Table 7. Articles by research subject.
Research SubjectArticles
1.
Innovation management standards
15
2.
Innovation management systems
50
3.
IMS and Innovation performance
8
Table
Table 8. Innovation management standards subtopics.
Table 8. Innovation management standards subtopics.
SubtopicArticles
Compatibility6
Impacts on companies7
Standard analysis2
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Idris, M.-C.; Durmuşoğlu, A. Innovation Management Systems and Standards: A Systematic Literature Review and Guidance for Future Research. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158151

AMA Style

Idris M-C, Durmuşoğlu A. Innovation Management Systems and Standards: A Systematic Literature Review and Guidance for Future Research. Sustainability. 2021; 13(15):8151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158151

Chicago/Turabian Style

Idris, M-Chukri, and Alptekin Durmuşoğlu. 2021. "Innovation Management Systems and Standards: A Systematic Literature Review and Guidance for Future Research" Sustainability 13, no. 15: 8151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158151

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop