Knowledge and innovation in start-up ventures: A systematic literature review and research agenda

2021 ◽  
Vol 172 ◽  
pp. 121026
Author(s):  
Peter Guckenbiehl ◽  
Graciela Corral de Zubielqui ◽  
Noel Lindsay
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Start Up

scholarly journals From Supply Chain 4.0 to Supply Chain 5.0: Findings from a Systematic Literature Review and Research Directions

Logistics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Guilherme F. Frederico
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Industry 4.0 ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Strategy Innovation ◽  
Transition Issues

The main purpose of this paper is to present what the Industry 5.0 phenomenon means in the supply chain context. A systematic literature review method was used to get evidence from the current knowledge linked to this theme. The results have evidenced a strong gap related to Industry 5.0 approaches for the supply chain field. Forty-one (41) publications, including conference and journal papers, have been found in the literature. Nineteen (19) words, which were grouped in four (4) clusters, have been identified in the data analysis. This was the basis to form the four (4) constructs of Industry 5.0: Industry Strategy, Innovation and Technologies, Society and Sustainability, and Transition Issues. Then, an alignment with the supply chain context was proposed, being the basis for the incipient Supply Chain 5.0 framework and its research agenda. Industry 5.0 is still in an embryonic and ideal stage. The literature is scarce and many other concepts and discoveries are going to emerge. Although this literature review is based on few available sources, it provides insightful and novel concepts related to Industry 5.0 in the supply chain context. Moreover, it presents a clear set of constructs and a structured research agenda to encourage researchers in deploying further conceptual and empirical works linked to the subject herein explored. Organizations’ leadership, policymakers, and other practitioners involved in supply chains, and mainly those currently working with Industry 4.0 initiatives, can benefit from this research by having clear guidance regarding the dimensions needed to structurally design and implement an Industry 5.0 strategy. This article adds valuable insights to researchers and practitioners, by approaching the newest and revolutionary concept of the Industry 5.0 phenomenon in the supply chain context, which is still an unexplored theme.

scholarly journals Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 4129
Author(s):  
Manuel Sousa ◽  
Maria Fatima Almeida ◽  
Rodrigo Calili
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
Multiple Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
2030 Agenda ◽  
Development Goals

Multiple-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods have been widely employed in various fields and disciplines, including decision problems regarding Sustainable Development (SD) issues. The main objective of this paper is to present a systematic literature review (SLR) on MCDM methods supporting decisions focusing on the achievement of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in regional, national, or local contexts. In this regard, 143 published scientific articles from 2016 to 2020 were retrieved from the Scopus database, selected and reviewed. They were categorized according to the decision problem associated with SDGs issues, the MCDM methodological approach, including the use (or not) of fuzzy set theory, sensitivity analysis, and multistakeholder approaches, the context of MCDM applications, and the MCDM classification (if utility-based, compromise, multi-objective, outranking, or other MCDM methods). The widespread adoption of MCDM methods in complex contexts confirms that they can help decision-makers solve multidimensional problems associated with key issues within the 2030 Agenda framework. Besides, the state-of-art review provides an improved understanding of this research field and directions for building a research agenda for those interested in advancing the research on MCDM applications in issues associated with the 2030 Agenda framework.

scholarly journals Personality trait differences across types of entrepreneurs: a systematic literature review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florentine U. Salmony ◽  
Dominik K. Kanbach
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Rural Farmers ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Research Integration

AbstractThe personality traits that define entrepreneurs have been of significant interest to academic research for several decades. However, previous studies have used vastly different definitions of the term “entrepreneur”, meaning their subjects have ranged from rural farmers to tech-industry start-up founders. Consequently, most research has investigated disparate sub-types of entrepreneurs, which may not allow for inferences to be made regarding the general entrepreneurial population. Despite this, studies have frequently extrapolated results from narrow sub-types to entrepreneurs in general. This variation in entrepreneur samples reduces the comparability of empirical studies and calls into question the reviews that pool results without systematic differentiation between sub-types. The present study offers a novel account by differentiating between the definitions of “entrepreneur” used in studies on entrepreneurs’ personality traits. We conduct a systematic literature review across 95 studies from 1985 to 2020. We uncover three main themes across the previous studies. First, previous research applied a wide range of definitions of the term “entrepreneur”. Second, we identify several inconsistent findings across studies, which may at least partially be due to the use of heterogeneous entrepreneur samples. Third, the few studies that distinguished between various types of entrepreneurs revealed differences between them. Our systematic differentiation between entrepreneur sub-types and our research integration offer a novel perspective that has, to date, been widely neglected in academic research. Future research should use clearly defined entrepreneurial samples and conduct more systematic investigations into the differences between entrepreneur sub-types.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document