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

: 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?


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?

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: 1. 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. 2.
In the second step, the number of articles was reduced to 599 after we applied three restrictions: a. They should be peer-review published papers. b.
The papers should be written in English. c.
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.

3.
In the third step, the sample was reduced to 431 titles after removing duplicates from the article list. 4.
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]. 5.
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. Table 1. Steps in filtering the articles.

Filter
Description Google Scholar

Mendeley Elsevier
Step Total Step 1 Articles with selected keywords 5320 2172 7476 Step 2 After applying release date and peer review restrictions 599 Step 3 Removing the duplicates 431 Step 4 After reading the title and abstract, relevant articles remained 68 Step 5 Citation tracking 5 Total 73

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. 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.

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].

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.

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]  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].

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.

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. "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

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].   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 standard facilitates innovation and improvement of internal transition and technology assimilation procedures, thus promoting improved outcomes of innovative products and services.
Case study 1  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 study 1 Managing Innovation in Complicatedly Organized Facilities 2020 1 New 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 study 1

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.

Survey
Address the gap that the role of management innovation in promoting technological process innovation in the inter-organizational context has not been fully explored.

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). Table 8. Innovation management standards subtopics.

Subtopic Articles
Compatibility 6 Impacts on companies 7 Standard analysis 2 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 IMSsthe 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)  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.

3.
More standard analysis of the present IMSts is still needed.

4.
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.

5.
The impact of IMS/St on each type of innovation still needs more research in order to give better understanding of it. 6.
The impact of IMS/St on innovation performance should be tested and evaluated in different sectors. 7.
The connection between IMS/St and value creation should be investigated. 8.
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.

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. 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.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A Table A1. The chosen articles after the filtering steps.

Ref No. Title
Year Purpose 1 A measurement scale for product innovation performance [68] 2006 Review 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.

2
A model for corporate renewal requirements for innovation management [49] 2010 Enhance 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.

A Proposed Innovation Management System Framework: A Solution for
Organizations Aimed for Obtaining Performance [31] 2012 In 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. 2013 Propose 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. 6 An innovation management system to create growth in mature industrial technology firms [71] 2015 Suggest a multi-case study research framework that links critical components of the innovation system with growth performance.

7
Application of the IUMSS methodology in an R&D-oriented nanotechnology setting [62] 2010 Examine the usability of management system standards (MSSs) in a nanotechnology setting geared towards R&D. 8 Are National Systems of Innovation Converging ? the Case Are National Systems of Innovation Converging ? the Case of Cen/Ts 16555 [77] 2015 Study of recent efforts to unify European-level innovation management as a practical measure of the degree of internationalization of national innovation systems.

9
Building knowledge for innovation management: The experience of the Umanlab research team [65] 2012 Assess the production conditions of methodological expertise for innovation management.

10
Business Models for Corporate Innovation Management: Introduction of A Business Model Innovation Tool for Established Firms [22] 2018 Supply existing companies with Business Model Innovation Tool

11
Chief technology officer's views and behaviors in the dual innovation management system [82] 2009 Introduce 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.

12
Cognitive Approach in Development of Innovation Management Models for Company [30] 2012 Consider the ability to use the cognitive approach to develop CIM models and implement successful innovation management systems.

13
Development and Operationalization of a Model of Innovation Management System As Part of an Integrated Quality-Environment-Safety System [47] 2017 Establish 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.
14 Diffusion of the UNE166002 Innovation Management Standard: a forecast model approach towards Internationalization [44] 2014 Study the spread of UNE 166002 standard for innovation management in Spain and predict the model of a hypothetical future standard for innovation management internationally. Does innovation lead to performance? An empirical study of SMEs in Taiwan [69] 2007 Explore 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. 16 Effects of innovation management system standardization on firms: evidence from text mining annual reports [45] 2017 Study of the effects of the standardization of values and attitudes concerning the innovation in Spanish companies. Innovation and ontologies: Structuring the early stages of innovation management [23] 2009 Analyse ontology as a modelling, analysis and comparison approach to the vague front-end of innovation management, especially the evaluation and selection of ideas.

22
Innovation Management (Une-Cen/Ts 16555-1:2013) Applied To Superior Education: Integration of Disruptive Technologies for the Teaching of Chemistry [60] 2015 Introduce disruptive technologies integration in chemistry teaching from an innovation management perspective.

23
Innovation management and Romanian SME's [34] 2010 Understand the relation between innovation and SMEs development in Romania.

24
Innovation management as part of the general management of the organization [24] 2018 Examine innovation management viewpoints and how companies can execute their innovation management practices and be prepared to face emerging challenges.

25
Innovation Management in Global Competition and Competitive Advantage [35] 2015 Assess the effect of innovation management on the competitive advantage by stressing the value of management of innovation.

26
Innovation management measurement: A review [4] 2006 Innovation 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. Clarify the emergence of Ecuador's national system of innovation management and review the public policies and financial movements to enhance this system.

31
Innovation management techniques and tools: Its impact on firm innovation performance [70] 2018 Discuss how the use of innovation management techniques (IMTS) affects the innovation performance of the company.

32
Innovation programs models: Design and management [64] 2019 Establish 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.

33
Innovation types and innovation management practices in service companies [75] 2007 Examine 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.

34
Integration of market pull and technology push in the corporate front end and innovation management-Insights from the German software industry [50] 2009 Present a conceptual framework focused on theory and can be applied in today's corporate environment.

35
Investigating the use of information technology in managing innovation: A case study from a university technology transfer office [53] 2012 Analyse the use of information technology for innovation management.

36
ISO 50500 series innovation management: overview and potential usages in organizations [27] 2017 This paper discusses ISO 50500 series and motivates their anticipated effect on the creation of an innovation culture.

37
IT-supported innovation management in the automotive supplier industry to drive idea generation and leverage innovation [54] 2013 Identify 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.  [78] 2012 Claim that consultants-led management innovation is generally highly standardized.

39
Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research [38] 2019 Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to have an insight into the current empirical research on management innovation. 2008 Explain Brisa's innovation approach and the modification process carried out to satisfy all the criteria of the new standard.

43
Managing the implementation of innovation strategies in public service organisation-how managers may support employees innovative work behavior [80] 2019 Identify which management strategies can be used by public managers to improve their employees' innovative behaviour.

MIM3: Methodology of Innovation Management for
Obtaining the Level 3 of I2MM [32] 2017 Create 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.

Model for Systematic Innovation in Construction
Companies [48] 2014 Define the methods and reasons for encouraging innovation in the construction firms.

46
Models with graphical representation for innovation management: a literature review [8] 2017 Suggest the type of innovation management models.

47
Organizational improvement through standardization of the innovation process in construction firms [55] 2012 Specify the innovation's motivators, success factors, advantages, and challenges in a medium-sized construction firm with a standardized system of innovation management.

48
Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance [72] 2012 Evaluate 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.

49
Organizational innovation management: An organization-wide perspective [84] 2008 Establish an organization-wide OIM framework and verify it.

50
Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys [81] 2008 Evaluate 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.

51
Self-certification framework for technological innovation: A case study [61] 2016 Propose 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.

52
Semantic Innovation Management System for the extended enterprise [87] 2011 Propose a Semantic Innovation Management System (SIMS) framework.

53
Smart innovation management in product life cycle [40] 2016 Develop 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.

54
Standardised innovation management systems: A case study of the Spanish standard UNE 166002:2006 [28] 2011 Examine the possibility of standardized innovation management.

55
Standardization and Innovation Management Letter from Standardization [41] 2017 Is standardization an innovation driver or an obstacle?

57
Standardizing innovation management: An opportunity for SMEs in the aerospace industry [58] 2019 Illustrate how real SMEs apply R+D+I management system by identifying and even testing the need to implement it.

58
The challenge of integrating innovation and quality management practice [63] 2016 Study the possible integration of the public sector's innovation and quality management practice.

59
The impact of standardized innovation management systems on innovation capability and business performance: An empirical study [20] 2016 Study the impact of Standardized Innovation Management System (SIMS) on the firm's innovation capability, innovation performance, and firm's results.

60
The need for innovation management and decision guidance in sustainable process design [56] 2016 Support 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.

61
The performance implications of the UNE 166.000 standardised innovation management system [76] 2019 Examine 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.  [83] 2013 Address the gap that the role of management innovation in fostering technological process innovation in the inter-organizational context has not been fully explored.

63
The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices [73] 2009 Innovation in management and its precedents and ramifications for individual enterprises.

64
The standardization model of innovation: case of HTEs high-technology enterprises [57] 2016 This paper explores how to develop successful innovation management with standardization as an objective for HTEs.

2011
Suggest 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.

66
Toward a New Innovation Management Standard. Incorporation of the Knowledge Triangle Concept and Quadruple Innovation Helix Model into Innovation Management Standard [43] 2017 In 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.

67
Towards an integrated approach to improving innovation management system of mining companies [29] 2019 Identify 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.

68
Towards Systematic Business Model Innovation: Lessons from Product Innovation Management [25] 2012 Systematically examine the similarities and discrepancies between innovation model of product and business to evaluate the potential of the transfer of insights and best practices.

69
Implementing an innovation management system at national research and development institute for industrial ecology-ECOIND [88] 2020 Presents 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 70 Communities of learning as support for one knowledge and innovation management system: A case study [52] 2020 Proposes the creation of a community of learning as a space for innovation within the organization 71 Does Standardized Innovation Management Systems Matter For Innovative Capability And Business Performance [2] 2020 Assessed whether standardized innovation management systems framework matter for innovative capability and business performance of companies.

72
Making 'hidden innovation' visible: A case study of an innovation management system in health care [89] 2020 Finding a way to make 'hidden innovations' visible is important if innovation is to be managed strategically within and across hospitals 73 Managing innovation in complicatedly organized facilities [51] 2020 To reveal the features and stages of innovation management in complicatedly organized facilities on the example of the city.