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. (...)

Abstract
Wisdom of the crowds, Technological capabilities and Functional alignment, which when recognised and utilised in innovation processes, can unlock the ability to source, develop and commercialise ideas at rapid pace. The phenomenon is known as technological convergence. By definition, technological convergence is described as the process by which Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) converge towards new and more unified markets. This convergence often leverages the three dimensions of innovation – economic, technical and functional. On the economic side, the focus of a focal firm is on maximising profits with minimal costs under resource constraints brought about in-part by liberalisation of markets. In this regard, open innovation which involves harnessing wisdom of the crowds at the fuzzy front-end of the innovation process has increasingly been promoted as a pragmatic mechanism for accessing widely distributed knowledge (Thanasopon, Papdopoulos & Vidgen, 2016), in large firms (Brunswicker & Chesbrough, 2018) and SMEs (Vanhaverbeke, Frattini, Roijakkers & Usman, 2018). On the technical side, the main driver has been the rise of enabling technologies, at times revolutioning social behaviour but mostly brought about through incremental shifts in technical abilities. Finally, convergence is realised through functional alignment, characterised by integration of computational, behaviour and communication factors in a unique value-proposition delivered through new product or new service (Canals, Torres & Borés, 2001). The growing prominence of technological convergence means firms can no longer afford to work in silos or rely on proprietory waterfall solutions to achieve competitive advantage and influence societal progress. Here, we build on our July 2018 editorial which emphasised the cumulative importance of management research and management practice working together for societal progress. W-T-F is offered here as the fundamental trilogy that both managers and researchers need to address to survive and thrive in an increasingly digitised and globally-connected world. (...)

Abstract
Following the reflection around the emergence of “research university” in the context of the slow but progressive increase in value of science and technology and research and development in Portugal, a study applied to the knowledge transfer and the process of innovation in the university, in the context of a master dissertation in information science (IS), study area of information management, is presented. The university is one of the most important institutions in the context of the national innovation system (SNI), being part of its mission the creation and transfer of knowledge. At the University of Porto (U.Porto), projects, such as the University of Porto Innovation unit (U.Porto Inovação) and the Science and Technology Park of the University of Porto (UPTEC) seek to support the university's innovation value chain, promoting the reinforcement and solidification of knowledge transfer and of the relations between the university and companies, as well as the promotion and support to the creation of companies with a technological, scientific, and creative base, and the attraction of numerous innovation centers of national and international companies. This chapter points out an informational perspective on I&D+i (research and development and innovation) and entrepreneurship, based on the systemic theory and the quadripolar method, as theoretical and methodological guidance tools, and an information management/knowledge management approach of innovation models for the knowledge economy, the national and international referents, and corresponding set of indicators. An exploratory study, which allowed the identification of internal and external agents, the resources, the relations between actors and institutions, the processes and flows, and the main inputs and outputs, is presented. The most relevant result is embodied in a model of innovation indicators in an academic context and applied to the University of Porto.

Abstract
The systematic review of the literature is a fundamental methodology for analyzing critically the existing literature on a given research theme. They are designed to be methodical, replicable and guide the author in identifying the main lines of investigation and conclusions in each scientific domain and, in addition, help them in the identification of new directions of research. However, the systematic review process is typically viewed as too heterogeneous, complex and time-consuming. In this sense, it is pertinent to propose a new approach for conducting systematic reviews that may be more agile, not only in terms of development, but also in the analysis of the results of a systematic review process. This article presents a canvas framework for conducting a systematic review composed of nine blocks and based on a set of identified good practices found in the literature, in which it is possible to easily identify all the steps of the process, options taken, and main results.

Abstract
The design of web and mobile applications is one of the most challenging fields of the current information technology landscape. Increasingly, companies intend to have a strong presence in the information society, which allows them to advertise their products, services, make online business, interact with customers, among others. However, the development and design of web and mobile solutions have numerous challenges and best practices that should be known and applied. In this chapter, the authors adopt a qualitative methodology based on multiple case studies that allow them to identify a total of six challenges and best practices that are later confronted and compared with the recent findings on the coverage of the topic. © 2018, IGI Global.