Understanding the roles of private consultants as innovation intermediaries in technology transfer: a case study in the Portuguese National Innovation System

JIM ISSN: 2183-0606 (CC BY 4.0) Vol. 12, 3 (2024) p. 56-71 AM: Apr/2024 SM: Oct/2023 Article Understanding the Roles of Private Consultants as Innovation Intermediaries in Technology Transfer: A Case Study in the Portuguese National Innovation System João Soares1, Fernando Romero2, and Manuel Lopes Nunes3 1School of Engineering, University of Minho, Department of Production and Systems, Guimarães, Portugal | joaosoa[email protected] 2School of Engineering, University of Minho, Department of Production and Systems, Guimarães, Portugal | [email protected] 3School of Engineering, University of Minho, Department of Production and Systems, Guimarães, Portugal | [email protected] Abstract The fields of innovation systems and technology transfer (TT) have seen growing interest in recent years, especially in the context of open innovation. Private consultants, play a vital role in mediating and facilitating interactions among various stakeholders in the innovation process. However, the specific roles of private consultants as innovation intermediaries have received limited attention in the literature. This study presents a case analysis of a Portuguese consultancy firm involved in 219 TT projects between 2015 and 2021. The research identifies six key intermediary roles consistently played by the consultancy: funding and finance, project management, technology scouting, design and ideation, feasibility assessment, and marketing/business development. The study further reveals that the type of entity initiating the TT project may influence the roles performed by private consultants. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the evolving nature and significance of private consultants as intermediaries in technology transfer. Keywords: technology transfer, innovation, intermediary, private consultants. Cite paper as: João Soares, Romero, F., Nunes, M. L., (2024). Understanding the Roles of Private Consultants as Innovation Intermediaries in Technology Transfer: A Case Study in the Portuguese National Innovation System, Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 56-71.; DOI: https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_012.003_0003 1 Introduction The fields of innovation systems (IS) and technology transfer (TT) have received increasing attention in recent decades, leading to a growing body of literature. However, the dynamic nature of markets, especially when viewed through an open innovation lens(Chesbrough, 2003), adds complexity to the innovation process. This complexity is further compounded by the recurrent emergence of new market needs, agents, and mechanisms within the IS, which have created new gaps that private innovation management consulting firms see as market opportunities for selling specialized and knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS). Within the context of open innovation, various players, including suppliers, clients, competitors, research institutes, universities, consulting firms, and other public organizations, tend to work together combining the value of playing distinct roles. TT stakeholders constantly seek access to Journal of Innovation Management DOI: https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_012.003_0003 56 Soares, Romero, Nunes external information and knowledge, which is facilitated by the growing involvement of innovation intermediaries. These intermediaries maintain networks, source market intelligence and technology knowledge, and facilitate access to other players and funding programs (Chesbrough et al., 2006; Čučković & Vučković, 2019). Innovation intermediaries play a critical role in the innovation process by serving as mediators or brokers between two or more parties, providing knowledge, brokering negotiations and contracts, mediating within networks, building project consortiums and partnerships, advising and consulting, obtaining funding, and monetizing innovation outcomes (Howells, 2006; Silva et al., 2018). Private players such as consultants and KIBS have professionalized the intermediation role and sold it as a specialized value-added service. The increasing growth in the number and range of these intermediary players within the systems has led to their recognition as too significant and too wide to be ignored by the system (Dalziel, 2010; Dalziel & Parjanen, 2012). The role of innovation intermediaries in technology transfer has been explored by several authors, with different typologies of intermediary organizations/entities having different roles that cannot be compared (Agogué et al., 2017; Howells, 2006; Pinto et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2018). The Portuguese national innovation system (NIS) is mainly governed by public and academic entities, but there has been a multiplication of private consulting firms operating in it, providing a wide range of services to businesses from a market pull perspective (Jun & Ji, 2016; Laranja, 2009). These private consultants have been positioning themselves as unofficial innovation intermediaries within the NIS, with their role and positioning when participating in TT projects (Basu & Taylor, 2010; Bessant & Rush, 1995; Costa et al., 2021; Tether & Tajar, 2008). The literature on innovation intermediaries focuses on various mentions and approaches to the topic. However, consultants who see themselves as innovation intermediaries tend not to be the focus of research and publications. The increasing number of consultants with this role emphasizes their importance in innovation policies and systems (Klerkx et al., 2015). Nevertheless, there is still a lack of depth in the literature regarding an understanding of what “technology transfer intermediation” is and the real role and positioning of these key intermediary agents within the innovation system (Howells, 2006; Silva et al., 2018). Following a clustered framework of roles to be performed by an innovation intermediary during a TT process, a statistical analysis was conducted on a sample of 219 TT projects in which a case study consultancy firm had intervened. The study aimed to identify the key intermediary roles played by the case study consultancy firm and how these might be influenced by the client organization responsible for their involvement in the TT project. 2 Related Work 2.1 Innovation Intermediaries In the traditional and linear TT literature, up to the 90s, the mention of an intermediary commonly aims to depict a public or academic institution formally responsible for performing the intermediary role in support of the TT processes. These public and academic institutions are traditionally connected to universities and research centres as knowledge sources, providing a layer of intermediary brokerage to interact with the industry (i.e., companies). Literature greatly focuses on traditional (public) types of intermediaries, such as Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), responsible for supporting and intermediating technology transfer and other aspects of the commercialization of the research that takes place in the university (Baglieri et al., 2018; Motta et al., 2017; Rocha & Romero, 2012); and Technology Interface Centres (TICs), newly created hybrid entities (i.e., semi-public) that serve as an intermediary link between higher http://www.open-jim.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 57 Soares, Romero, Nunes education institutions and companies. TICs are dedicated to valuing R&D results in the form of new products and services, mostly through technology transfer (Meyer et al., 2003; Prud’homme et al., 2018; Rocha & Romero, 2012). However, some new kinds of organizations playing key roles as intermediaries have begun to emerge in the literature, with private entities (companies) being one of the least researched and depicted intermediary types, despite their increasing role as innovation intermediaries. Examples of such entities include Business Accelerators (Becker & Gassmann, 2006; Etzkowitz, 2002); Industrial Associations (Watkins et al., 2015), Venture Capitals (Papagiannidis & Li, 2005; Sung et al., 2003); Patent Attorneys (Li et al., 2015); Consulting Firms (Cesário et al., 2015; da Costa et al., 2021); and other types of Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) (Muller & Zenker, 2001; Shearmur & Doloreux, 2019), which perform a diverse and varied set of TT intermediary roles, including scanning and information processing, gatekeeping and brokering or even direct support to marketing and commercialization (Howells, 2006). 2.2 Defining the Intermediary’s Role In the literature, authors mostly tend to agree that the intermediary's role in innovation and TT is far more complex than just “mediating” or “brokering” - the most highlighted intermediation roles in TT literature. For instance, Howells (2006) made a significant contribution to the innovation intermediary literature by presenting a comprehensive study in which he compiled, systematized, and shed new light on ten activities that innovation intermediaries can undertake and why they are becoming key agents in IS, namely: 1) Foresight and diagnostics; 2) Scanning and information processing; 3) Knowledge processing and combination/recombination; 4) Gatekeeping and brokering; 5) Testing and validation; 6) Accreditation; 7) Validation and regulation; 8) Protecting the results; 9) Commercialization; and 10) Evaluation of outcomes. Several authors have adopted Howells'framework proposal on the activities that intermediaries undertake in both innovation and TT (Kanda et al., 2018), seeking also to complement and add new roles and activities to the existing framework. Based on the widely accepted contributions of Howells (2006), Soares et al. (2020) gave new literature contributions on the TT intermediaries and their roles, activities, functions, and responsibilities, compiling it into a framework list of 13 roles (Table 1). This framework poses as a synthesized, yet updated set of roles an intermediary agent might undertake when involved in a TT process. Each of the roles clusters in itself a wide set of related responsibilities, functions and designations variations that might be used in the literature. Table 1. The thirteen roles of Innovation Intermediaries. Specializations Description Policy & Strategy (PS) Support and lobby policymakers in the development and implementation of regional, sectorial, or national-wide innovation policy strategies, providing a connection to government and public entities in matters of innovation. Mediation & Mobilization (MM) Create and coordinate networks and other strategic intermediation platforms, providing neutral grounds to foster collaboration between innovation system’s stakeholders and potentiate the mobilization of its key resources. Knowledge Diffusion & Support (KDS) Act as a two-way communication channel between university and industry, providing a centralized point of contact to both knowledge diffusion and knowledge support. http://www.open-jim.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 58 Soares, Romero, Nunes Specializations Description Funding & Finance (FF) The focus is to identify and bid to funding opportunities aligned with project needs, or in the due diligence and activities related to the strategic selection and sourcing of public or private financing schemes. Technology Scouting & Market Foresight (TSMF) Constantly monitor the technology state of the art evolution, scan and gather information to support innovation decisions and technology procurement. Playing as an input source of market opportunities through strategic foresight activities, such as identifying and diagnosing market trends, industry’ needs and innovation challenges. Design & Idealization (DI) Support the conceptualization and generation of new project ideas, by assisting in the idealization process contributing with knowledge and creative support. Brokering & Gatekeeping (BG) Brokering and gatekeeping technology, R&D results, and intellectual property, arranging and negotiate technology deals between sources and interested recipients. Project Management & Assessment (PMA) Assisting with the design, set-up and management of projects properly aligned with defined goals and needs, interacting regularly with key stakeholders from project administration and execution control tasks. Also, since acting as neutral third parties, intermediaries can independently assess and evaluate technology transfer projects performance and its impacts. Financial and Technical Feasibility (FTF) Assisting with concept proofing, supplying qualified feasibility analysis, and testing, diagnosing, and evaluating ideas, models, and technologies’ prototypes in order to validate and evaluate its potential. Accreditation & Quality (AQ) Support in accreditation and standards, providing assistance in technology regulation and arbitration due diligences and through quality processes. Intellectual Property & Rights (IPR) Support R&D and technology needs through legal strategies, representing and supporting bureaucratic processes to protect and value intellectual property, rights, and other innovation assets. Implementation & Knowledge Transfer (IKT) Be part of the technology transfer and implementation processes fostering the recipient absorptive capacity through knowledge transfer strategies such as the selection and training of specialized workforces. Marketing & Business Development (MBD) Bridge and help to sell ready-to-market technology innovations, by assisting in key business activities like marketing research and strategy and after by assisting in the commercialization process. Also, in the case of entrepreneurial technology transfer strategies, being in the form of spin-offs and/or start-ups, it adds up the need for business development support to create, accelerate and grow the ventures. The conceptualization of the "role" of TT intermediaries is still evolving. This role encompasses multiple responsibilities, functions, activities, and specializations that address the complex needs of TT processes and market failures. While it is challenging to define this role precisely, synthesizing contributions from different authors can help establish a portfolio of key roles and specializations that come close to capturing the essence of intermediary functions. http://www.open-jim.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 59 Soares, Romero, Nunes 2.3 Consulting Firms as Private Intermediaries Private intermediaries, such as consulting firms specializing in management and innovation, have been offering professional services and are emerging as unofficial, and often unrecognized, players in the NIS. Private consulting firms, in particular, have gained recognition as one of the main types of private intermediaries (Basu & Taylor, 2010; Howells, 2006). These firms provide a wide range of KIBS and bring a fresh perspective of "innovation-as-a-service" to the NIS (Pinto et al., 2015). They play a vital role in facilitating TT processes by offering their expertise and acting as intermediaries between companies, academia, and the state. Still, being private organizations with an unregulated role within NIS, these intermediaries and their roles are unresearched and underrepresented in the literature. The literature on management and innovation consulting showed that consulting firms focus on increasing the value of their services by adjusting them to clients'interests and market needs (Basu & Taylor, 2010; Butler, 2009; Drucker, 1981). Thus, consultants can be the product of client-consultant relationships (Costa et al., 2021; Martinez et al., 2016). Some consulting firms may develop their value proposition on more transversal and managerial roles with more significant potential to respond to a broader market need, while other more specialized consulting firms and KIBS might focus on delivering more niche roles in specific fields and sectors related to knowledge-intensive services (Basilioa et al., 2019; Bianchi et al., 2016; Shearmur & Doloreux, 2019). However, unlike traditional intermediaries, the roles and specializations of private consultants are not planned and designed by NIS’s regulators, nor thoroughly described in the literature. As such, it should be taken into consideration the defining importance of client-consultant relationships in the roles played by private consultants as innovation intermediaries and how these roles can be influenced by their clients. 3 Methodology 3.1 Research Problem The research gap addressed in this study is the under-researched role of private consultants as innovation intermediaries in technology transfer (TT) projects. More specifically, it is focused on defining and validating the roles these private intermediaries might play from the wide portfolio of intermediary roles depicted in the literature(Soares et al., 2020). Despite their increasing recognition within the Innovation System (IS), private consultants have been somewhat overlooked by most IS and TT literature. This might be due to their for-profit nature and their tendency to adjust themselves to their clients in the most profitable way (Bessant & Rush, 1995; Canato & Giangreco, 2011; Drucker, 1981). Thus, we can hypothesise that private consultant’s roles as innovation intermediaries might be influenced by those who hire them. To address this gap, the research questions for this study are formulated as follows: -What intermediary roles do private consulting firms play in TT projects? -Are the roles played by private consultants influenced by their clients? 3.2 The Case Study For this study, a case study approach was adopted to gain an insider perspective on the roles played by private consultants in the NIS. A documental analysis methodology was employed as a http://www.open-jim.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 60 Soares, Romero, Nunes non-inferential approach (Morgan, 2022). The documental analysis involved an approach that used content analysis to extract data variables suitable for statistical analysis. The case study focused on a Portuguese innovation consultancy firm with over 25 years of experience and brand recognition in the national market, specializing in SME consulting and publicly funded projects of Strategic and Technology Innovation natures. The consultancy firm under study has a portfolio of 400+ clients, which includes industrial and technology businesses as well as dozens of Portuguese R&D centres and University units. It has over 40 specialized collaborators with backgrounds that range from economics and accounting to distinct engineering specializations, being its main focus in the field of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), namely those technology advancements focused on digital transformation and Industry 4.0. 3.3 Sample and Data Collection The sample for this study consisted of publicly financed projects where the case study consultancy firm was involved. Those were related to innovation grants and funds approved in Portugal between 2015 and 2021 (Alexandre, 2021), only selected those in which a concrete transfer of technology was evident. Data from documents and support elements used by consultants in TT project management was obtained directly from the firm archives. The data collection involved analysing project folders, descriptive records, communication records (i.e., emails, CRM), and some direct consultation with project managers whenever it was deemed necessary. A total of 219 projects were included in the final sample. 3.4 Statistical Analysis The collected data was structured and subjected to various procedures, including data entry, sample descriptive analysis, and statistical tests using IBM®SPSS®Statistics version 28.0. Descriptive analysis was conducted to measure the frequency of each of the thirteen roles proposed by Soares et al., (2020) in Table 1 for each of the 219 TT projects. Additionally, a Chi-square test of independence was performed to determine the association between the roles and the project origin or client. The decision rule used for statistical tests had a significance level of p≤0.05 . The outputs of the Chi-square tests consisted of minimal distribution tables that allowed for an understanding of the association between variables and the behaviour of the case study consultancy firm with external variables. 4 Results 4.1 Roles performed by the private consultant The descriptive analysis of the roles performed by the case study consultancy firm in 219 TT projects can be analysed in terms of four perspectives: key roles, common roles, non-significant roles, and non-played roles. The key roles of FF, and PMA were present in most projects. In addition, TSMF was also a significant role as it was performed in more than 50% of the sample. Other less frequent roles, but performed in more than 10% of the sample, were considered common roles, and include DI, FTF and MBD. The roles of BG, MM, IPR and AQ were performed residually (in less than 10% of the projects) and thus not considered significant. Lastly, the roles of IKT, KDS and PS were not registered in the sample. The literature predominantly emphasizes traditional roles like Brokering, Gatekeeping, and Mediation as key intermediaries’ roles. Yet, the analysis to the case study consultancy firm shown http://www.open-jim.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 61 Soares, Romero, Nunes Figure 1. Roles performed by the private consultancy (case study firm) in the sample. a sample of TT projects much less focused in these more traditional roles, in addition to only performing consistently (>10%) in six out of the thirteen roles analysed. 4.2 The existence of a correlation with the project origin entity A set of statistical tests was performed to establish a correlation between the roles and the type of organization responsible for the project's inception and the involvement of the private consultant. Four key types of entities were registered in the sample. In 64,8% of the sample the projects originated whether by 1) a Recipient Company; 2) a University or Technology Transfer Office (TTO); or 3) a semi-public Research Centre or a Technology Interface Centre (TIC). In over a third of the sample, the TT project was designed and originated by the case study Private Consultancy firm itself. Through descriptive analysis of the case study sample, six key roles emerged as the most frequently performed by the private consultancy firm in over 10% of projects: Funding & Finance (FF), Project Management & Assessment (PMA), Technology Scouting & Market Forecast (TSMF), Design & Idealization (DI), Financial and Technical Feasibility (FTF), and Marketing & Business Development (MBD). Consequently, the statistical tests were based on these six key roles, while the remaining seven were considered residual and excluded from the tests. http://www.open-jim.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 62 Soares, Romero, Nunes Table 2. Distribution tables - Intermediary Roles VS Origin entities Origin Entity No Yes Qty Funding & Finance University/TTO 25% 75% 4 Research Centre/TIC 10% 90% 10 Recipient/Company 2.3% 97.7% 128 Private Consultant 2.6% 97.4% 77 Project Management & Assessment University/TTO 100% 0% 4 Research Centre/TIC 80% 20% 10 Recipient/Company 4.7% 95.3% 128 Private Consultant 9.1% 90.9% 77 Technology Scouting & Market Foresight University/TTO 25% 75% 4 Research Centre/TIC 40% 60% 10 Recipient/Company 46.9% 53.1% 128 Private Consultant 39% 61% 77 Design & Idealization University/TTO 50% 50% 4 Research Centre/TIC 60% 40% 10 Recipient/Company 78.9% 21.1% 128 Private Consultant 54.5% 45.5% 77 Financial & Technical Feasibility University/TTO 50% 50% 4 Research Centre/TIC 60% 40% 10 Recipient/Company 75% 25% 128 Private Consultant 94.8% 5.2% 77 Marketing & Business Development University/TTO 50% 50% 4 Research Centre/TIC 80% 20% 10 Recipient/Company 82% 18% 128 Private Consultant 96.1% 3.9% 77 The chi-square independence tests conducted on each of the top six roles, confirmed, in five of them (FF, PMA, DI, FTF and MBD), the existence of a significant correlation (p<0.05) between the role performed and the type of organization promoting or originating the project. Moreover, chi-square distribution tables were generated to demonstrate the different origin entities'responses regarding the role performance rate (Table 2). This deeper insight into role disparities and patterns further fuelled discussion of the results. 5 Discussion According to the literature, the role of innovation and TT intermediary is a multifaceted concept that goes much beyond the traditional roles of mediating and brokering. Based on the conducted case study was possible to confirm the intermediary role of a private consultancy firm as an innovation intermediary within TT projects. Considering the thirteen roles of an innovation http://www.open-jim.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 63 Soares, Romero, Nunes intermediary proposed by Soares et al. (2020), six roles were found to be performed by the case study consultancy firm in more than 13.2% of the 219 TT projects in the sample. Other roles performed in less than 10% of the sample were disregarded as non-significative. The main role played by the case-studied consultancy firm focused on providing access to financing instruments (i.e., Funding and Finance - 96.8%). Second was the role of Project Management and Assessment (88.58%), which consisted of the managerial support related to the administrative technicalities of handling funded projects within the scope of the national EU-financed Framework Program Portugal 2020. The third key role of the consultant was to set up or complete the project consortium, either upstream with the search for suppliers and technology or downstream with the identification of target markets and companies interested in becoming recipients (i.e., Technology Scouting and Market Foresight - 56.62%). Other roles, less significant but also relevant, were Design & Idealization (31.2%), Financial and Technical Feasibility (19.2%) and Marketing & Business Development (13.7%). The idea of private consultants adjusting their roles/services to their client's interests is present in the literature (Basu & Taylor, 2010; Martinez et al., 2016). In the case study sample, four categories of entities responsible for originating the TT project with the private consultancy were identified: 1) a Recipient Company; 2) a University or Technology Transfer Office (TTO); 3) a semi-public Research Centre or a Technology Interface Centre (TIC); or 4) the Private Consultancy firm under study itself. A series of statistical tests were conducted on the sample to identify if the roles performed by the private consultancy firm in TT projects were significantly influenced by the type of entity originating the project. The Chi-square tests of independence confirmed the existence of statistically significant associations between five (out of six) roles analysed and the category of the entity that gave rise to the project. This finding could indicate that different entities of the Innovation System could see and value different intermediary roles even within the same private consulting firm. The consultancy firm under study played a set of six key roles that mostly define its organization’s position and value proposition as a private innovation intermediary acting within TT projects. The most prominent role was of Funding & Finance (FF), being performed by the private consultant in 96.8% of the TT projects in the samples. This role shows a higher tendency to be performed in TT projects originated by private entities (either recipient companies or the private consultancy), having been found a statistically significant association between the FF role and the type of entity originating these projects (p=0.045<0.05). These results could indicate the FF role importance for TT projects stakeholders, with particular incidence to private entities who see in this role a gateway to a financial incentive to innovation, as private consulting firms such as the case study firm, are particularly well informed to the funding opportunities and how they can be accessed efficiently. In the Project Management & Assessment (PMA) role, a strong association with the type of origin entity was found (p<0.001). Thus, in TT projects originated by more traditional and public-related entities, such as Universities/TTOs and Research Centres/TICs, the PMA role was only performed residually by the private consultancy. In contrast, the same role of PMA was performed by the case study firm in more than 91% of the TT projects originated by either the recipient companies or the consultancy firm itself. These results could have different interpretations since on one hand, literature shows traditional intermediaries and related entities such as universities and R&D centres tend be professionally capacitated to manage their R&D, innovation, and TT projects. On the other hand, the high demand from the private market entities might indicate a lack of capacity, resources, or even know-how from recipient companies and at the same time a high interest of the consulting firm to manage the TT project as its intermediary. http://www.open-jim.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 64 Soares, Romero, Nunes Biographies João Soares. João is a versatile professional, equally adept in business and engineering. With a background in design engineering, product marketing, and project management, he has thrived in the manufacturing industry. João’s career has focused on designing and launching innovative products, collaborating with diverse stakeholders, including companies, universities, RD centers, and consulting firms. For the past decade, João has excelled as a senior innovation strategy consultant. His expertise lies in conceptualizing, planning, securing funding for, and managing national-scale projects. He has driven success in areas such as product development, digital transformation, and Technology Transfer. Known for his visionary leadership and collaborative approach, João fosters a culture of creativity and inclusivity. His strategic acumen and ability to build strong partnerships have been instrumental in achieving impactful results. Constantly seeking growth and staying abreast of industry trends, João is a lifelong learner. His passion and expertise position him as a catalyst for change in business, engineering, and innovation. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0263-3915 CRediT Statement: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review Editing. Fernando Romero. Fernando Romero holds an M.A. in Technology Policy and Innovation Management from the University of Maastricht (NL), and a Ph.D. in Science and Technology Studies from the University of Manchester (UK). He is at the Production and Systems Department (Industrial and Technology Management Group), and at the ALGORITMI Research Centre (Industrial Engineering and Management Group, Economics and Management of Engineering Systems Research Team), at the University of Minho. The main research interests are in the areas of University-Industry-Society Relations, Technology Transfer, Innovation Systems, Technological Systems, Technology Management, Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Research Evaluation and the relation between Innovation and Quality. He is the author or co-author of more than one hundred publications in journals, books or conference proceedings, asides from other works which include technical reports and other articles for technical magazines. He has been involved in several international and national research projects whose funders include the European Commission or the Portuguese funding national agency, Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7540-8540 CRediT Statement: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Review Editing, Supervision. Manuel Lopes Nunes. Manuel Lopes Nunes (Habilitation, PhD) is Assistant Professor at the Department of Production and Systems, University of Minho. He is researcher at the ALGORITMI RD centre, in the Industrial Engineering and Management (IEM) research group, with interests in the fields of: Product Innovation; Marketing and Productivity; Cost Systems; Thermo-Economic Optimization; Time-to-market of New Products; Sustainability; Entrepreneurship. He is co-author of 62 indexed (e.g. ISI, Scopus) publications in international peer reviewed journals and conferences. He has a total of 927 Google Scolar citations (h-index of 10) and 565 Scopus citations (h-index of 12). He has been research member in financing projects, namely: Euratlantic - Mission to Analyse the Euratlantic Area in the automotive sector with a View to na International Promotion Campaign, Interreg III B Atlantic Operational Programme, 2005; BATinLoko - Environmental performance indicators and their relation with economic factors in textile BAT implementation, project approved under European Union FP7 Life Programme, 2009-2011, EU budget (50%) 153k€; Erasmus+ / EU financed project "Investing in Entrepreneurial Universities in Caucasus and Central Asia"" (EUCAINVEST) and NETEP ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1313-2523 CRediT Statement: Writing - Review Editing, Supervision. " http://www.open-jim.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 71