Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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?
Idris et al. (Wed,) studied this question.