Abstract
In our previous editorial, we positioned our perspective and introduced the acronym “ROTRUS” to characterise the science of managing for innovation as – Real world, Observable, Testable, Replicable, Uncertain and Social. Specifically, we argued that methods that draw on point-in-time beliefs, perceptions and de-humanised data in a complex and evolving social setting of innovation management pose a challenge for replicability. We warned innovation researchers to avoid the pitfalls that might foster pseudoscience and generalised assumptions from information that is still in the proto-science stage. Drawing on longstanding understanding in psychology of the whole human, we discussed the need to explore methods that capture brain, mind and behaviour aspects in innovation management, spanning the analysis from individual to group and societal levels. In this editorial, we move the discussions forward by focusing on one plausible methodological approach to advance the science of managing for innovation – behavioural experiments. In the following sections, we explain our methodological stance or in other words our world view followed by a brief review of behavioural experiments and their relevance to innovation research. We conclude with a foreword on our final editorial in the series titled the science of managing for innovation. (...)

Abstract
Some might argue that ever so nimble and responsive innovation paradigms can rarely be managed scientifically. We propose a more inclusive perspective. Science of managing for innovation has certain characteristics which we identify through the acronym “ROTRUS”- Real-world, Observable, Testable, Replicable, Uncertain and Social. Real-world refers to the notion that innovation happens in practical settings, be bound by resources and capabilities. This real-world is the context in which the observable events occur. To progress the understanding of formative predictors and their impact on innovation, the innovation events need to be observable. This may be challenging if we are to believe that much of the innovation is driven by heuristics (see e.g. Lopez-Vega, Tell and Vanhaverbeke, 2016; Nisch and Veer, 2018). Observable evidence in our perspective does not mean it needs to be capable of being observed but includes events or phenomenon that were observed. In this sense, managerial heuristics once actioned become observed evidence, such that observable evidence is any evidence that can be or has been experienced by one or many, regardless of whether this can be observed by a third party. (...)

Abstract
This study aims to conceptualise the risks of a co-creation relationship between providers and customers in the front end of innovation (FEI). The existing literature on the topic of the interactions between customers and providers is vast but mostly reflects the vision of each respective field of science addressing specific issues and dynamics. This review paper combines integrative and generative approaches (Post et al., 2020). The narrative overview methodology (Green et al., 2006) fits the purpose to integrate the contributions of scholars from different areas and with distinct perspectives. The authors present a comprehensive view of the complex and, sometimes, conflictual customer-provider relationship in a business-to-business (B2B) context applied to the FEI. The review, mostly focused in the service industry, included the identification of inconsistencies and poorly explained phenomena. This work contributes decisively to the innovation, management and organisation literature, advancing a model of the projected risks of the specific customer-provider relationship in the FEI phase.

Abstract
In the last issue of 2015, the editorial was titled “Winter is coming: The dawn of Innovation?“ As almost 2 years have gone by, this topic was revisited. So why not wonder how innovation was going around this same time of the year? In trying to answer this question, a visit to Google© Trends revealed an interesting and possibly unexpected chart that is illustrated in figure 1. (...)

Abstract
The story of societal progress has long been acknowledged to involve two brothers - management research and management practice (Beyer, 1982). Although, reared by the same knowledge core (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989; Wallin and von Krogh, 2010), the brothers in a display of their contrasting lives behave independently, often disparately. Their distinct behaviour has prompted scholars to report that ’most of what management researchers do utterly fails to resonate with management practice’ (Bansal et al., 2012, p. 73). Those observing the relationship unfold have been concerned of this disconnect for decades (Banks et al., 2016; Hambrick, 1994; Shapiro, Kirkman and Courtney, 2007). Gordon and Howell (1959) posited that universities and business schools need to be ’better informed and more scholarly faculties that are capable of carrying on more significant research, and with greater appreciation of the contributions to be made to the development of business competence’ (p.425). (...)

Abstract
Were you ever asked by a manager to ‘do what you want’, where you felt free to innovate? Did it feel like freedom? Maybe you felt encouraged since you could now experiment your idea, but did it mean that your performance was now on the radar? Could you then stay true to your vision or did you feel the need to compromise so that the ‘numbers lined up’? Either way, you should know that you are not alone. Arguably, we are in an age of paradox1 where simultaneous contradic- tions are all too common. Innovation paradox arises when “the aggressive pursuit of operational excellence and incremental innovation crowds out the possibility of creating ground-breaking innovations” (Davila & Epstein, 2014, p.2). Often these contradictions are meaningful on their own merit but when interdependent on each other, they create tensions in economic, social, environmental and ethical decision-making. In previous editorials, we have shared how digital innovations and societal disparity across the world are influencing strategic decision-making and shifting the innovation mindset. We now stretch the boundaries by suggesting that paradigms relying on economic trade-offs and shared-value that have shaped conventional organisational strategies are no longer sufficient to guide paradoxical tensions in decision-making. (...)