## 2 Research Background and Framework
### Innovation Framework
All the major actors agree that only a few innovation management techniques and tools (IMTs) are widely recognized, and most are unidentifiable and inaccessible to firms. Over 37% of the actors declared that most firms are not aware of the existence of IMTs, while 34% stated that few IMTs are sufficiently defined to be successfully applied within firms. All actors are convinced that new challenges coming from the knowledge-driven economy require new IMTs [2]. The current main IMTs used are project management (82%), followed by business plan development (67%), corporate intranets (66%), and benchmarking (60%) [1]. However, corporate reporting is still founded on a financial and management accounting model developed for the industrial economy and is not able to deal with today's knowledge economy, where most corporate value creation is based on knowledge assets rather than on physical resources and financial capital [2]. Furthermore, there is a mutually reinforcing interaction between innovation management tools and knowledge creation, thus leading to a key role within strategic management [20]. In this context, Industry 4.0 creates opportunities based on using digital technologies and platforms to manage innovation [21]. One of them, the digital twin concept first presented in the NASA 2010 technology roadmap [22], has already been used as a platform to bring education and research activities together [23]. A DT model enables one to monitor, optimize, and forecast processes that support the continuous improvement process [24]. Simulations based on a digital twin model can increase organizational adaptability as what-if scenarios could be verified at the design stage through a series of simulation experiments [25]. Moreover, the literature refers to the existence of a significant set of practices in the quality field that can support and facilitate the formalization of integrated management systems, including quality and innovation management systems. Nevertheless, it appears that to ensure a correct and adequate transition to an IMS (Innovation Management System), companies must follow the guidelines presented throughout ISO 56002:2019 that reveal objective examples of implementation of certain practices, as it categorically explains the key points that should be included in the innovation processes and/or initiatives to ensure the total success of its innovation activities. Therefore, companies face a big challenge when trying to integrate both quality management and innovation management systems in a coherent, meaningful, and practical way [3]. There are also difficulties inherent in the lack of conceptualization for their practical application and their role in developing firm dynamic capabilities [26]. Techniques associated with entrepreneur management (business models and plans, as well as simulation tools, technology transfer, and spin-offs) were the most popular, followed by cooperative and networking tools and industrial property management techniques. On the other hand, continuous improvement tools, production organization, and lean techniques were the least utilized, perhaps due to their manufacturing characteristics. The research has clear management implications. First, it calls for focused innovation management, applyingsophisticated innovation management techniques and systems. Second, it outlines the contingent aspect of this application when looking for efficiency. Third, tools must be implemented considering the firm, its experience, and the sector of activity [26].