Conference PaperPDF Available

Information Systems for Innovation: A Comparative Analysis of Maturity Models’ Characteristics

Authors:

Abstract

Nowadays, virtually all industries are impacted by the digitalization of business enabled by information and communication technologies. Consequently, it is a major challenge to any business to increase its ability to innovate through information systems. However the effort and the investments of companies are extremely varied, they do not have the same level of maturity with respect to their innovation strategy. While some highly mature use effective approaches, others still act as novices or use inadequate practices. The question raised in this paper is how to evaluate the level of maturity of an organization with respect to information systems based innovation. Also, the question concerns the identification of the salient features of ICT centred innovation maturity models. Taking these issues into account, the paper makes the following contributions: (i) a review of sixteen innovation maturity models collected from the research and the practitioners community, gathering facts about the models and about their effectiveness; (ii) a comparative analysis of these models.
Information Systems for Innovation:
A Comparative Analysis of Maturity Models
Characteristics
Abdelkader Achi
1(&)
, Camille Salinesi
1
, and Gianluigi Viscusi
2
1
Centre de Recherche en Informatique, UniversitéParis 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne,
Paris, France
abdelkader.achi@malix.univ-paris1.fr,
camille.salinesi@univ-paris1.fr
2
College of Management of Technology (CDM), École Polytechnique Fédérale
de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
gianluigi.viscusi@epfl.ch
Abstract. Nowadays, virtually all industries are impacted by the digitalization
of business enabled by information and communication technologies. Conse-
quently, it is a major challenge to any business to increase its ability to innovate
through information systems. However the effort and the investments of com-
panies are extremely varied, they do not have the same level of maturity with
respect to their innovation strategy. While some highly mature use effective
approaches, others still act as novices or use inadequate practices. The question
raised in this paper is how to evaluate the level of maturity of an organization
with respect to information systems based innovation. Also, the question con-
cerns the identication of the salient features of ICT centred innovation maturity
models. Taking these issues into account, the paper makes the following con-
tributions: (i) a review of sixteen innovation maturity models collected from the
research and the practitioners community, gathering facts about the models and
about their effectiveness; (ii) a comparative analysis of these models.
Keywords: Innovation capacity Innovation engineering Capability
Maturity Maturity model Innovation maturity models Assessment
maturity model
1 Introduction
There have never been as many disruptions as those observed the past 20 years with the
increased diffusion and adoption of information and communication technologies
(ICTs). New ICT based innovations emerge every day both in the public and the
private sector, as well as in everyday life. All businesses are actually impacted by ICTs,
and not just because of the new technologies themselves: indeed, ICTs are at the origin
of new customer behaviours, new business models, and new markets. Even more: there
are now new ways to achieve innovations that were not imagined before the invention
of the Internet, open source development and open data, peer to peer, wikis, social
networks, copyleft and the like. Thus, both the internal and external environments of
©Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
J. Krogstie et al. (Eds.): CAiSE 2016, LNBIP 249, pp. 7890, 2016.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-39564-7_8
organizations are impacted by information technologies [26,38]. While each company
denes its own strategy to cope with these changes, many companies have difculty to
dene and implement a proper innovation strategy, use inadequate approaches, and are
not mature in terms of innovation practices. In most cases, the competition requires the
use of ICTs to enter on dominant markets. In order to cope with these problems,
companies are increasingly trying to take a systematic and proactive approach to
realizing innovation [44]. Many companies are turning to assess their innovation
process and determine key improvement actions [8]; others start concrete actions
through open innovation [6,7,46] or creativity techniques [2] to improve their
innovation capacity.
Some works have already demonstrated the benets of using maturity models [2].
However, there are still many open questions about innovation-specic features of
maturity models. Taking these issues into account, the research presented in this article
is part of an effort to identify effective innovation maturity models driven by ICTs, and
support their use in organizations. We believe that understanding existing innovation
maturity models is a key step towards this goal. Therefore, the core research question of
the paper is what are the salient features of ICT centred innovation maturity mod-
els?Starting from a collection of innovation maturity models selected from scientic
as well as practitioners oriented literature, we provide a classication of their main
characteristics that we use as the key building block of a structured analysis framework.
A comparative analysis is then presented, considering (a) general purpose maturity
models, and (b) innovation maturity models proposed at industry level.
The article is structured as follows. Section 2introduces maturity innovation by
dening the main concepts of maturity models of innovation. Section 3describes the
innovation maturity models selected for the review for the comparative study, and
proposes a systematic description of their salient features. Section 4reports measures
and validation instruments for the considered maturity models. Section 5discusses the
ndings and its practical implications. Research perspectives for future work conclude
the paper.
2 Related Work
As shown by [49], although innovation and especially the ability of organisations to
innovate has raised the attention of many researchers, there is no consensus on its
denition. While Link and Siegel [28] consider innovation as the implementation of a
new idea leading to a change that creates value. Wang and Ahmed [47] have a more
organisation centric view. They call innovativenessthe ability of organizations to
innovate, more precisely, innovativeness is the overall internal receptivity to new ideas
and innovation that is demonstrated through individuals, teams and management, and
that enables the formation of an innovative culture[47]. Carlson and Wilmot [5] have a
slightly different denition. For them, innovativeness is founded on the concept of
innovation, the process of creating and delivering new customer value in the market-
place [5]. For [43], innovation capacity refers to the continuous improvement of the
ability to generate innovation in order to develop new products that meet customer
needs. Considering business practices, many researchers made use of maturity models
Information Systems for Innovation 79
that focus on a set of constructs suitable to stimulate innovation capacity at rm level,
thus provisionally overcoming the challenges associated to establishing a semantic
denition of innovation. Yet, the various models available in the literature [33] represent
a set of concepts of the state of the art related to best practices in an area of activity such
as CMMI for software development [41]. Furthermore, it can be argued that most of
them draw their origins in the work of Crosby [10,20] and they are heavily inspired by
the CMMI maturity model (Capability Maturity Model Integration) by SEI (Software
Engineering Institute). Indeed, using a maturity model helps an organization to assess
the current state of its processes and to plan for improving its practices [42,48]. It serves
for assessing organizational practices processes implemented and support their
improvement. The use of the concept of maturity is thus adopted in various elds both in
research and business practice such as, e.g., systems engineering, purchase, service [11],
Research and Development processes [3], assessing innovation capability [13,16].
According to [22], the maturity grids can be applied to all processes of all companies to
get higher performance. Organizations evolve, change to achieve the most mature large
as possible at a given time. Thus, we argue that the innovation capacity of a process or
activity can be evaluated depending on different levels, which similarly to the CMMI
can be classied, e.g., as initial,managed,dened,quantitatively managed,optimizing
[17,35]. Therefore, strengthening an organizations innovation capacity requires a
combination of different measurements, in order to improve critical points and progress
towards a higher maturity level [13].
Furthermore, the main objective of maturity models is to improve the quality of the
processes by assessing processes and improving their weak spots. The maturity models
account for a well balance between standardization and exibility of innovation pro-
cesses related in order to change the business environment and meet to requirements of
stakeholders. However the relevance and diffusion of maturity models, the salient
features and characteristics of innovation within these maturity models have been little
investigated from a systemic perspective. Thus, in what follows we detail the results of
a review of the literature, which leads to the selection of more than 50 maturity models
and specic characteristics. Among those models, we then choose those that are
specically dedicated to innovation management.
3 Innovation Maturity Models in Research and Practice
The use of maturity models in companies has intensied and it has recently expanded
in various elds. This expansion gave rise to several maturity models, both from the
research and the practitioner community. In this article, we consider sixteen maturity
models selected for discussion here that are particularly relevant to the assessment of
innovation capacity proposed in the literature. To analyse these maturity models, they
have been grouped into three categories on the basis of the community producing or
else using them. Furthermore, the following characteristics with regards to the objective
of the research were dened:
Concept of maturity levels,
Process areas or items,
Focus on innovation in general, open innovation, or innovation and IS/IT.
80 A. Achi et al.
The results of the analysis of the literature are presented in Table 1a (showing
models from the research community), Table 1b (showing models from the community
of practitioners), and Table 1c (showing hybrid models), where the selected models are
described considering: Model name, Process areas or dimensions, Type of innovation,
References.
The selection of the models from the research community (shown in Table 1a)
usually is based on the presence of relevant literature that supports the model and the
usability for innovation managers and practitioners. Whereas for the models coming
from the community of practitioners (see Table 1b), the selection considers the use of
the model by the company creator or the client companies to improve innovation
capacity.
Yet, as for hybrid models in Table 1c, both the criteria for research and practi-
tioners communities are considered.
Notwithstanding each model, either from the research or the practitioners com-
munity, has its own structure, most models are based on the original concept of
maturity as already dened in the CMMI model [36], representing an assessment of
maturity of the whole organization. In CMMI models [21] with a staged representation,
there are ve maturity levels (initial, managed, dened, quantitatively managed, opti-
mizing) that consist of a predened set of process areas; each of the ve maturity levels
captures performance expectations, practices or activities performed collectively to
achieve the objective of that process area. Similarly, for every model considered at the
state of the art there are certain process areas determined for each maturity level that an
organization must implement in order to achieve a given maturity level. Thus, it can be
argued that innovation maturity models have taken the same principles.
Taking these issues into account, Table 2shows a relative similarity among the
levels considered by state of the art maturity models. Indeed, the ve maturity levels of
the rst CMMI model inspired most of the subsequent models. Furthermore, some
models have taken the ve maturity levels of CMMI. For others, they adopted their
own terms to designate levels of maturity. The number of models studied levels of
maturity varies from 3 to 6. Noting that the IMM model (B) does not have adopted
maturity levels.
4 ModelsStructures and Validation
As shown in Sect. 3, measuring the maturity of innovation capacity, its determinants or
processes/practices may vary from one model to another. Different authors propose
assessment models and representational capacity to innovate that we have summarized
Tables 1a,1b and 1c. Indeed, the areas as well as the dimensions of different models
are very heterogeneous, thus resulting in various modelsstructures. Yet, all models
agree on a set of key factors suitable to improving a company ability to innovate; in
fact, it depends on rstly understanding the innovation capability of a given organi-
zation and what is needed to that organization to improve it, even if the constructs
considered by the various models are different. According to the models considered in
previous Section and shown in Tables 1a,1b and 1c, thirteen main dimensions have
been identied: culture, risk perspective, collaboration/open innovation process,
Information Systems for Innovation 81
Table 1a. Analysis of innovation maturity models (research community)
Maturity models Process areas or
dimensions
Type of innovation References
IS/IT
innovation
General Open
innovation
A Innovation
Capability
Maturity
Model
(ICMM)
3 process areas:
innovation process,
knowledge and
competency, and
organizational support
[14]
B Innovation
Maturity
Model (IMM)
8 process areas: Culture,
Risk Perspective,
Resources, Customer
Focus, Learning,
Collaboration,
Leadership, and
Process score
[45]
C Service
Innovation
Capability
Maturity
Model
(SICMM)
2 process models (The
New Service
Development process
model consists of six
main processes, and
The Innovation
process model, based
on the concept of open
service innovation)
[27]
D Open
Innovation
Maturity
Framework
(OIMF)
3 items : partnership
capacity, climate for
innovation and internal
processes
[13]
E Open
Innovation
Maturity
Management
Framework
(OIMMF)
3 dimensions: open
innovation process,
individual capabilities,
competencies
••[24]
F Knowledge
Management
Framework
(KMF)
1 dimension: knowledge [17]
G Model of An
Adaptive
Organization
(MAO)
7 process areas: vision
and strategy, culture
and beliefs, senior
leadership, processes,
plans, people, and
desired outcomes
[12,39]
82 A. Achi et al.
Table 1b. Analysis of innovation maturity models (community of practitioners).
Maturity models Process areas or
dimensions
Type of innovation References
IS/IT
Innovation
General Open
innovation
H Continuous
Delivery
Maturity Model
(Forrester
Consulting)
The model help to
evaluate
continuous delivery
capability of
companies; the
level of continuous
deployment
capability have a
incidence for
capacity to
innovate through
custom software
[19]
I PRTM
PRTM and
Microsoft
Corporation)
Innovation Maturity
Model (PRTM and
Microsoft
Corporation)
Each stage of the
model is
characterized by a
set of
representative
management
practices in four
areas (vision and
strategy, insights,
management,
organization)
[31]
J Integrated
Innovation
Maturity Model
(I
2
MM) (Pumacy
Technologies
AG)
The model is
structured into four
process areas :
ideation and
product
development,
innovation
management,
requirements
engineering and
quality
management
[33]
K Innovation
Maturity Model
(Berg Consulting
Group)
The model addresses
for each level of
maturity for the
organization the
strategic focus and
capability. It
identies the
priority actions. It
[4]
(Continued)
Information Systems for Innovation 83
partnership capacity, climate for innovation, processes and practices/organization,
individual capabilities, knowledge, learning and competencies/people, ideation and
product development, innovation management, requirements engineering/customer
focus/continuous delivery, quality management, leadership/strategy and intent/vision
and strategy, infrastructure/tools/resources and organizational support.
Each factor promoting innovation is dened by sub factors or practices under
represent the activities or business processes. For example, between ideation/generation
concepts and individuals/organization/culture, there is a link because a culture of
innovation facilitates the emergence of new ideas. We nd the interactions between all
dimensions/factors. It exists therefore a synergistic effect that enhances the companys
innovation capacity. The analysis of the factors/areas and processes of the innovation
assessment models thus shows a clear trend of the complexity for assessment the
innovation capacity as multi-criteria that have relationships between them. It also
demonstrated similarities in the form of a list of factors/process areas that allow assess
innovation capacity and trigger an improvement plan.
Otherwise, for validation of maturity models, the Table 3below shows methods of
validation of each model. Most models have been validated by various methods. For
Table 1b. (Continued)
Maturity models Process areas or
dimensions
Type of innovation References
IS/IT
Innovation
General Open
innovation
is advises to place a
preliminary focus
on developing
capability and
culture
L Innovation
Management
Maturity
Model
(Planview)
The model is based
on four
dimensions:
strategy, people,
processes, and
tools
[34]
M Maturity Model for
Innovation
Management
(Gartner)
The model is based
on six dimensions:
strategy and intent,
processes and
practices, culture
and people,
organization and
infrastructure,
partnerships and
open innovation,
innovation how we
innovate
[18]
84 A. Achi et al.
example the model IMM (B) was validated by three different methods: workshops,
interviews and surveys collected from broad engineering-procurement and construction
(EPC) organizations.
Taking these issues into account, we propose to select only the maturity models
from research based on a robust validation (through intensive interviews, survey
Table 1c. Analysis of innovation maturity models (hybrid models).
Maturity models Process areas or
dimensions
Type of innovation References
IS/IT
innovation
General Open
innovation
N Breakthrough
Innovation
(Brinnovation)
Brinnovation builds
on employees
natural talents, and
simplies the
innovation process.
The methodology
for developing
innovative solutions
is TEDOC (Target,
Explore, Develop,
Optimize and
Commercialize)
[23]
O Innovation
Capability
Maturity Model
(ICMM)
The key to improving
your ability to
innovate depends
on the rst
understanding the
innovation
capability of your
organization and
what you need to do
to improve
[29,30]
P Innovation
Capability
dEtermination
(ICE)
The model is based on
innovation
assessment and
process capability.
Five types of
processes (idea to
innovation,
connected
innovation driver,
supporting,
innovation objective
analysis and
decision, quantitate
processes)
[37]
Information Systems for Innovation 85
methods, case studies or workshops) and implemented within companies (see Table 3).
Yet, due to the relevance of information systems (IS) for innovation, two more
frameworks are worth considering. These include the model CMMI-DEV for software
[9], and COBIT V5 for governance and management of IT [25]. Indeed, CMMI-DEV
is composed of 22 process areas. Among these areas, there is the area of Organiza-
tional Innovation and Deployment, its purpose is to select and deploy incremental
and innovative improvements that measurably improve the organizations processes
and technologies. For COBIT V5, it is composed of 37 processes of governance and
management, and each process describes its objectives, best practices, activities and
deliverables. Furthermore, the process Manage Innovationis made up of six practices
(creating an enabling environment for innovation, maintaining an understanding of the
business environment, evaluating the potential of emerging technologies, evaluating
the potential of emerging technologies, and monitoring implementation of
innovations).
Table 2. Maturity levels of models
Models Number
of levels
Maturity levels
A ICMM 5 Ad hoc, dened, supported, aligned, synergised
B IMM 0 Not available
C SICMM 6 Incomplete, performed, disciplined, dened,
managed, optimized
D OIMF 5 Initial, repeatable, dened, managed, optimizing
E OIMMF 4 Closed, dened, managed, aligned
F KMF 3 Ad hoc and limited, formalization and
predictability, integration, synergy and autonomy
G MAO 5 Ad hoc, vision & strategy, processes, culture &
beliefs, innovation
H Model of
Forrester
5 Initial, managed, dened, quantitatively managed,
optimizing
I Model of PRTM
and Microsoft
4 Stages I, II, III, IV
JI
2
MM of Pumacy
Technologies
5 Chaotic, organized, standardized, predictable, black
belt
K Model Of Berg
Consulting
5 Entry level innovation practices, emerging
innovation practices, co-ordinated innovation
practices, innovation leadership, industry
innovation leadership
L Planview Model 5 Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
M Gartner Model 5 Reactive, active, dened, performing, pervasive
N Brinnovation 5 Sporadic, idea, managed, nurtured, sustained
O ICMM of Mann 5 Seeding, championing, managing, strategizing,
venturing
P ICE of Peisl and
Johanson
5 Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
86 A. Achi et al.
5 Discussion of the Results
According to [11], The SW-CMM approach was based on principles of managing
product quality that have existed for the past 60 years. A CMM follows the quality work
of Crosby [Crosby 1979] where he observed progressing levels of maturity in an
organizations ability to anticipate, resolve, and eventually nullify quality problems.
For innovation models, we found that most models are based on the principles of CMM
models (SEI) and partly some quality research including works of Crosby (19791986),
TQM (19951998), ITIL (19802007) and ISO15504 (2005). The development of
academic and industrial models in the time allowed integrating a multitude of factors or
processes areas of innovation process or business innovation systems to assess the
maturity of the innovation capacity, comparing levels of business maturity and imple-
ment improvement plan. Indeed the OIMF model (2011) took into account the work on
the ICMM model (2009) and in the MOA model (2013) took into account the work on
the I
2
MM model (2011). So there is a capitalization of knowledge anchored to the CMM
original source as a blueprintactually evolving through different model instances as
well as congurations for improving innovation practices and meeting the challenges of
innovation imposed by a permanent change in competitive environment. Otherwise, we
have also found that while maturity models are focusing more and more on open
innovation, they still remain at a general level of description and to date there is no
dedicated maturity model of innovation by technologies or IS except for a small part of
the COBIT framework V5 devoted to innovation through technologies. Academic and
industrial community seek to identify innovative levers adapted to the changing eco-
nomic environment. However, the models proposed in the literature take more into
account open innovation, to date, to our knowledge, there are no innovation models
focused on the role of IS. Finding the right model of assessing the ability to innovate and
thus able to analyze the management of mobilized resources for innovation in the current
context where information and communication technologies plays a crucial role for
innovation is an important challenge for research and businesses [1,32].
Table 3. Types of validation for the models.
Models Validation
Interviews Survey Workshop Case
study
Number
of
companies
References
A ICMM ••5[15]
B IMM ••46
C SICMM ••1
D OIMF ••15 [13]
E OIMMF ••1[24]
F KMF 5
G MAO ••1[11,40]
Information Systems for Innovation 87
6 Conclusion and Future Work
This research has presented a comparative study of maturity models for innovation
based on an extensive review of both academic and practitioners oriented literature.
Thus, this paper contributes to understand the key characteristics of state of the art
maturity models, particularly with regard to the innovation they enable in a given
company. As for the diverse levels suitable to improve innovation capacity, although
some models adopt different levels of maturity, a common root has been identied in the
ve maturity levels of the rst CMMI model. Furthermore, strengthening an organi-
zations innovation capacity requires a combination of different measurements/factors,
in order to improve critical points and to achieve a higher maturity level. The assessment
of the maturity of the innovation process is the rst step on a path of continuous
improvement. In particular, the study also revealed four basic observations:
1. The principles of CMMI model are widely used in the design of innovative maturity
models.
2. Heterogeneous constructs or process areas are nonetheless characterising the diverse
models emerging from both research and practitioners literature.
3. Capitalization of knowledge is a key factor in innovation maturity models over
time.
4. Various practices of assessment methods and constructs can be applied to the
validation of maturity models targeting innovation.
5. The models proposed in the literature improve increasingly take more account of
open innovation; yet, to our knowledge there a few or none innovation models by IS.
In summary, the analyses presented in this article provide the basis for the design
and development of a framework for innovation capacity maturity driven by infor-
mation systems. In future work the authors intend to take advantage of the analysed
models, in particular areas or topics for each model and assessments methods, thereby
potentially enabling an automated assessment of innovation capacity, which can be
used by managers in order to adapt their processes of innovation.
References
1. Applegate, L.M., Elam, J.J.: New information systems leaders: a changing role in a changing
world. MISQ Q. 16(4), 469490 (1992)
2. Banerjee, B., Gibbs, T.: Teaching the innovation methodology at the Stanford d.school. In:
Banerjee, B., Ceri, S. (eds.) Creating Innovation Leaders, pp. 163174. Springer, Heidelberg
(2016)
3. Berg, P., et al.: Assessment of quality and maturity level of R&D. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 78(1),
2935 (2002)
4. Berg, R.: The Innovation Maturity Model. Berg Consulting Group Pty Ltd., Melbourne
(2013)
5. Carlson, C.R., Wilmot, W.W.: Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What
Customers Want. Crown Business, New York (2006)
88 A. Achi et al.
6. Chesbrough, H., et al.: Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for
understanding innovation. In: Chesbrough, H., et al. (eds.) New Frontiers in Open
Innovation, pp. 328. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014)
7. Chesbrough, H., Brunswicker, S.: Managing open innovation in large rms, survey report
(2013)
8. Chiesa, V., et al.: Development of a technical innovation audit. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 13
(2), 105136 (1996)
9. Chrissis, M.B. et al.: CMMI pour le développement, Version 1.3. Pearson, Paris (2011)
10. Crosby, P.B.: Quality is Free. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York (1979)
11. Cross, S.E.: A Model to Guide Organizational Adaptation. Presented at the June (2013)
12. Cross, S.E.: A model to guide organizational adaptation. Presented at the Proceedings of the
2013 IEEE International Technology Management Conference & 19th ICE Conference, The
Hague, The Netherlands, June 2013
13. Enkel, E., et al.: Open innovation maturity framework. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 15(06), 1161
1189 (2011)
14. Essmann, H., Du Preez, N.: An innovation capability maturity modeldevelopment and
initial application. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 53, 435446 (2009)
15. Essmann, H., Du Preez, N.: An innovation capability maturity model-development and
initial application. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 53, 435446 (2009)
16. Essmann, H., Du Preez, N.: Practical cases of assessing innovation capability with a
theoretical model: the process and ndings (2009)
17. Esterhuizen, D., et al.: A knowledge management framework to grow innovation capability
maturity. SA J. Inf. Manag. 14, 1 (2012)
18. Fenn, J., Harris, K.: A Maturity Model for Innovation Management. Gartner
19. Forrester Research: Continuous Delivery: A Maturity Assessment Model, USA (2013)
20. Fraser, P., et al.: The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing product
development capability (2002)
21. Garceau, L.R., et al.: A proposed model of assessment maturity: a paradigm shift. J. Bus.
Behav. Sci. 27(1), 142 (2015)
22. Grant, K.P., Pennypacker, J.S.: Project management maturity: an assessment of project
management capabilities among and between selected industries. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.
53(1), 5968 (2006)
23. Gupta, P.: Leading innovation change - the kotter way. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 3(3), 141150
(2011)
24. Habicht, H., et al.: Open innovation maturity. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Organ. 2(1), 92111
(2012)
25. Isaca: COBIT 5 A business framework for the ogvernance and management of enterprise IT.
Isaca, Rolling Meadows, Illinois (2012)
26. Koehler, J., et al.: An impact-oriented maturity model for IT-based case management. Inf.
Syst. 47, 278291 (2015)
27. Li, E.Y., et al.: A framework for the service innovation capability maturity model. Presented
at the 4th International Conference on Operations and Supply Chain Management,
Hongkong & Guangzhou, 25 July 2010
28. Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S.: Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Technological Change. Oxford
University Press, Oxford (2007)
29. Mann, D.L.: Automating innovation capability maturity measurement. E-Zine (156) (2015).
http://systematic-innovation.com/past-e-zines-2011-2016.html
30. Mann, D.L.: Innovation Capability Maturity Model (ICMM) An Introduction, IFR Press
(2012)
31. Mohammad, M., Romeri, M.: The Road Map for Innovation Success. Whitepaper (2007)
Information Systems for Innovation 89
32. Morabito, V., et al.: Understanding the changing role of CIOs in the big data and analytics
era: an empirical investigation. In: WOA 2015 (XVI Workshop dei docenti e ricercatori di
Organizzazione Aziendale), Padova, Italy (2015)
33. Müller-Prothmann, T., Stein, A.: I
2
MM integrated innovation maturity model for lean
assessment of innovation capability. In: XXII ISPIM Conference 2011: Sustainability in
Innovation, Hamburg/Germany, 1215 June 2011, p. 11 (2011)
34. Nauyalis, C.: A new framework for assessing your innovation program: introducing the
innovation management maturity model
TM
by planview, white paper. http://www.planview.
com/company/press-releases/introduces-innovation-management-maturity-model/
35. Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.: Capability Maturity Model for
Software, version 1.1, Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-93-TR-24 February 1993
36. Paulk, M.C.: The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software
Process. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1995)
37. Peisl, T., Johansen, J.: Innovation Maturity: Innovation competences depends on process
capability (2012)
38. Peng, J., et al.: Impacts of essential elements of management on IT application maturity a
perspective from rms in China. Decis. Support Syst. 51(1), 8898 (2011)
39. Rouse, W.B.: Necessary competencies for transforming an enterprise. J. Enterp. Transform.
1(1), 7192 (2011)
40. Rouse, W.B.: Necessary competencies for transforming an enterprise. J. Enterp. Transform.
1(1), 7192 (2011)
41. Rungratri, S., Usanavasin, S.: Project assets ontology (PAO) to support gap analysis for
organization process improvement based on CMMI v.1.2. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.
M. (eds.) ICSP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5007, pp. 7687. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
42. Saraph, J.V., et al.: An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management.
Decis. Sci. 20(4), 810829 (1989)
43. Szeto, E.: Innovation capacity: working towards a mechanism for improving innovation
within an inter-organizational networknull. TQM Mag. 12(2), 149158 (2000)
44. Tidd, J., Hull, F.M.: Managing service innovation: the need for selectivity rather than best
practice. New Technol. Work Employ. 21(2), 139161 (2006)
45. Toole, T.M., et al.: A tool for improving construction organizationsinnovation capabilities.
In: Construction Research Congress 2010, pp. 727836. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Canada (2010)
46. Vanhaverbeke, W., Chesbrough, H.: A classication of open innovation and open business
models. In: New Frontiers in Open Innovation, pp. 5068. OUP Oxford, Oxford (2014)
47. Wang, C.L., Ahmed, P.K.: The development and validation of the organisational
innovativeness construct using conrmatory factor analysis. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 7(4),
303313 (2004)
48. van de Weerd, I., Bekkers, W., Brinkkemper, S.: Developing a maturity matrix for software
product management. In: Tyrväinen, P., Jansen, S., Cusumano, M.A. (eds.) ICSOB 2010.
LNBIP, vol. 51, pp. 7689. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
49. Zawislak, P.A., et al.: Innovation capability: from technology development to transaction
capability. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 7(2), 1427 (2012)
90 A. Achi et al.
... It is referred to as PCM when is necessary bigger control documentation and deliverable, resulting in better monitoring for project managers in the product lifecycle, that praise the PCM as a significant factor in project management. (Fowler, 1996;Pantoni et al., 2007;Whyte et al., 2016) Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020 Research Papers all domains and the attention of the research community (Achi et al., 2016), and diverse models in different domains were created, in construction (Jia et al., 2013), or in project management (Brookes et al. 2014), or even in the agriculture sector (L. Reis et al., 2018). ...
... MMs can help immature organizations become more robust and sustainable. These tools support organizations by assessing their process's current state and by defining an improvement path (Achi et al., 2016). This kind of assessment tools assists an organization in adapting to their environment and being more agile (Mettler & Rohner, 2009), helping to find weak and strong "spots" and improving an organization's process quality (Achi et al., 2016). ...
... These tools support organizations by assessing their process's current state and by defining an improvement path (Achi et al., 2016). This kind of assessment tools assists an organization in adapting to their environment and being more agile (Mettler & Rohner, 2009), helping to find weak and strong "spots" and improving an organization's process quality (Achi et al., 2016). They will ensure low costs and the process's execution in lower time (Hamel et al., 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
Background and purpose: This research aims to investigate which benefits one may expect using Maturity Models in Configuration Management (CM) domain. CM is a support process that helps organizations have better management of their infrastructure. Its importance, in the Information Technology (IT) domain, has increased in recent years, despite this process not being technologically new, and the fact that many organizations implement this process in a haphazard way, which results in it not producing the benefits that it should produce. With the intention of assessing and improving the organizations’ IT processes practices and capabilities, MMs have been developed and implemented. However, the application of MM in the CM domain is yet to be explored. Design/Methodology/Approach: Two Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) and a Critical Analysis were performed. In sum, 80 scientific articles of the most rated conferences and scientific journals were analyzed and conclusions were drawn. Results: This research concludes that despite the CM process being badly implemented, using a MM this process could decrease operational costs and increase the quality management of the infrastructure. Conclusion: However, no MM has been developed so far for the CM process practices. This MM would be a viable support tool for the IT organizations providers since this would help organizations have a mature CM process and better control of their IT infrastructure. Therefore, the existence of a MM for the CM domain would be a welcome advancement that should be developed in the future.
... Maturity Models (MMs) can help immature organizations become more robust and sus-tainable. These tools support organizations by assessing their current process state and defining an improvement path (Achi et al., 2016). MMs help organizations adapt to their environment, become more agile (Mettler & Rohner, 2009), identify strengths and weak-nesses, and improve process quality (Achi et al., 2016), ensuring lower costs and quicker process execution (Hamel, Herz, Uebernickel, & Brenner, 2013). ...
... These tools support organizations by assessing their current process state and defining an improvement path (Achi et al., 2016). MMs help organizations adapt to their environment, become more agile (Mettler & Rohner, 2009), identify strengths and weak-nesses, and improve process quality (Achi et al., 2016), ensuring lower costs and quicker process execution (Hamel, Herz, Uebernickel, & Brenner, 2013). ...
Article
IT departments often encounter challenges due to overlapping practices from various frameworks, leading to unnecessary costs and inefficiencies. Additionally, Configuration Management (CM) process-es are frequently implemented poorly, missing out on potential benefits. To address these issues, our research employs a Systematic Literature Review and Design Science Research methodology to develop a comprehensive and non-redundant CM Maturity Model. By integrating frameworks such as COBIT, ITIL, and CMMI-SVC, our model is designed to assist organizations lacking clear improvement strate-gies, those with inadequately implemented CM processes, or those seeking self-assessment. The model is also beneficial for companies managing multiple standards simultaneously. Managers can utilize this model to evaluate CM maturity before implementing various frameworks. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of “Quick Wins” to accelerate improvement initiatives. This research provides a practical tool for IT professionals to streamline CM processes and navigate the complex landscape of IT frameworks, ultimately leading to more efficient and effective CM practices.
... Despite the fact that enterprises consider innovation important, Achi et al. (2016) note that many of them have significant difficulties in defining and implementing the right innovation strategy. Many companies use improper approaches and are immature in terms of innovation practices. ...
... Several overview analyses of Industry 4.0 MM have been undertaken. Most of them are based on Capability Maturity Model Integration CMMI) from Software Engineering Institute or the work of Crosby (1979) (Achi et al., 2016). It is noticeable that the vast majority of the models place a clear focus on the technological aspects and that organizational, cultural, people-related, leadership and process-related dimensions are of secondary importance (Hizam-Hanafiah et al., 2020;. ...
... Maturity models detail the criteria associated with different maturity levels; they provide the basis for an organisation to determine their 'as is' and desired 'to be' maturity state (Carcary, 2011) and serve as a tool to define an improvement path in alignment with best known practices (Proença, 2016;Aguiar et al, 2018). Since the 1980s, maturity models have attracted considerable interest from the research community (Achi et al, 2016;Pereira and Serrano, 2020). Many models reported in the literature are applicable to IT but they adopt a narrow focus, concentrating on specialist niches or specific aspects of IT management (Table 1). ...
Article
The enterprise-wide scope of an organisation’s IT capability in sustainably leveraging technology for business value is well-researched, and the level of maturity of this capability is a key determinant of an organisation’s success. IT capability maturity has become more critical as technological developments continue at an accelerated pace and as whole industries are being disrupted by digital developments. Maturity in terms of IT leadership, IT processes, IT infrastructure, and a myriad of other supporting organisation-wide capabilities is required. Since the 1980s, maturity models in the literature have focused on specialist niche areas, with few adopting a holistic perspective. Across these models, a lack of consensus is evident on the key capabilities that should be matured and on what the important sub elements or building blocks of these capabilities are. How does the organisation achieve an adequate level of maturity if the required capabilities are unclear? As one of the most holistic IT capability maturity models identified, this paper undertakes a systematic analysis of the 36 IT capabilities within IT Capability Maturity Framework (IT-CMF) and the 315 sub elements (Capability Building Blocks (CBBs)) that comprise these capabilities. This research aims to identify the common sub elements or building blocks inherent across the 36 capabilities, which we will refer to as Foundational Capability Building Blocks (FCBBs), and a high-level definition of these FCBBs abstracted from the relevant sub elements and discussed in terms of their recognised importance to effecting successful digital transformations. From an academic perspective, the research provides deeper insight on common themes that are pertinent to IT capability improvement. From an industry practitioner perspective, it breaks down the complexities of IT capability maturity with a focus on a manageable number of considerations.
... Büyük şirketler, sürdürülebilirliklerini desteklemek için iş süreçlerindeki ayrıntıları anlamak ve yapısal olarak ele almak için bilgi akışına ihtiyaç duymakta ve bu yüzden bu tür teknolojik uygulamalara yatırım yapmaya daha meyilli olmaktadırlar (Aydıner ve Tatoğlu, 2019). Yönetim bilişim sistemleri, sosyal uygulamalar sağlayarak çalışanlarının bir arada olmasını sağlayan ve bu oluşumla birlikte bilgi paylaşımı yapmalarını kolaylaştırmakta ve inovasyon süreçlerine de büyük katkılar sunmaktadır (Panori, Kakderi, Komninos, 2020;Lill, Wald, Munck, 2020;Achi, Salinesi, Viscusi, 2016). ...
... L'étude de ces différentes contributions révèle l'évolution des indicateurs d'innovation et un enrichissement des modèles et cadres d'évaluation. Ainsi, de nouveaux indicateurs ont été proposés pour évaluer la capacité d'innovation en tenant compte des challenges d'innovation (Milbergs et Vonortas, 2004;Achi et al., 2016b), marquant ainsi un nouveau tournant. En effet, alors que les premiers travaux sur l'évaluation de la capacité d'innovation se sont limités aux facteurs internes du processus d'innovation, notamment en matière de ressources et connaissances (Chiesa et al., 1996;Adams et al., 2006), les modèles d'évaluation les plus récents intègrent les facteurs liés à l'ouverture des processus d'innovation (Enkel et al., 2011;Habicht, Möslein, & Reichwald, 2012). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
La concordance de la révolution des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication (TIC), et des bouleversements d’une économie mondiale de plus en plus interconnectée amène à s’interroger sur le lien entre TIC, et capacité d’innovation des entreprises. Or parmi les travaux qui se penchent sur les processus d’innovation, très peu le font dans la perspective des Systèmes d’Information (SI), encore moins dans le contexte d’écosystèmes ouverts, perméables et interdépendants. Nous présentons dans cet article les résultats d’une enquête menée auprès des responsables d’innovation IT et de transformation digitale dans 81 entreprises françaises de plus de 5000 salariés. Partant de deux hypothèses, l’étude interroge les déterminants de la capacité d’innovation au sens large : innovation commerciale, organisationnelle, technologique, produit, procédé ou modèle d’affaires. L’enquête met en évidence les effets positifs des deux variables sur la capacité d’innovation, l’un révélant l’influence de l’usage des SI dans les processus d’innovation, l’autre montrant l’importance des activités des processus d’innovation. Analysés et discutés au regard de la littérature existante, ces résultats originaux montrent que les entreprises qui souhaitent renforcer leur capacité d’innovation ont intérêt à repenser en profondeur leur manière de s’appuyer sur les SI et le processus d'innovation.
Article
İşletmelerde dijital dönüşüm ve işgören performansı önem verilmesi gereken unsurlardandır. Dijital dönüşüm süreci işletmelerin iş modelleri, iş yapma yöntemleri ve iş süreçlerinde önemli bir dönüşüme neden olduğu gibi işgörenlerin görev alanları içinde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerini kullanarak beceri ve yeteneklerini daha etkin bir şekilde kullanmalarına olanak sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, dijital dönüşümün işgören performansı üzerindeki etkisini belirlemektir. Çalışmanın diğer bir amacı da işletmelerin büyüklüklerine göre dijital dönüşüm düzeylerinin farklılık gösterip göstermediklerini tespit etmektir. Anket yöntemi kullanılan araştırmada Kocaeli ilinde faaliyet gösteren işletmelerdeki 104 çalışandan elde edilen veriler SPSS programında analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma bulgularına göre işletmelerin dijital dönüşüm düzeylerinin işgören performansı üzerinde anlamlı ve pozitif bir etkisi vardır. İşletmelerin dijital dönüşüm düzeyleri işletme büyüklüklerine göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık göstermektedir. Büyük işletmelerin dijital dönüşüm düzeyleri küçük işletmelerin dijital dönüşüm düzeylerinden daha fazladır. Çalışanlarının performanslarını artırmak isteyen işletmelerin dijital dönüşüme önem vermeleri ve dijital dönüşüm düzeylerini yükseltmeleri gereklidir.
Article
Full-text available
In order to investigate the relationship between IT application maturity and management capabilities, the authors conducted a survey study to collect related company information for analysis. Data processing was conducted to obtain valid and reliable variables representing IT application maturity, management institutional capability, and process management capability. Then, they adopted a partial differential equation approach to capture the time dynamics of these variables. The equations were solved analytically, and further empirically estimated through our processed survey data. The validated model demonstrates that both management capabilities have direct enhancement effects on IT application maturity. In addition, process management capability has a greater influence on IT application maturity in comparison with management institutional capability. Furthermore, it is found that there exist local maximums for both enhancement effects, provided that the two management capabilities are well balanced. The findings not only offer practical implications, but also supplement the literature of factors for IS success in light of the dynamic relationship between IT application maturity and management capabilities.
Article
Maturity models can be seen as support tools for an organization. Their importance is increasing in the scientific community and IT (Information Technology) organizations are starting to implement them. The main objective of maturity models is to evaluate and improve the organization’s practices by creating an improvement roadmap. However, the utilization of the methodologies and methods by this community for the development of this kind of tools is not consensual. Several investigators have created guidelines for the development of maturity models, but the authors are not adopting them; they prefer to adopt their own methodologies. In this research, with the objective of reviewing the methodologies, methods, and guidelines used by the scientific community to develop IT maturity models, a Systematic Literature Review and a Critical analysis were made in order to realize a comparison between IT maturity models and Non-IT maturity models. In total, 109 articles of maturity models’ development were analyzed. A discussion of the articles’ results was realized.
Article
Full-text available
Innovation has been considered necessary for solving every problem today. In any business meeting, conference or media innovation is discussed and desired. However, key challenges in realizing innovation are a well understood framework and an infrastructure for its successful deployment. Current frameworks including Open Innovation, Crowd Sourcing and many others do not address corporate needs in terms of credibility and for its body of knowledge for developing competency. Having established a credible and teachable framework for innovation, the author realized that organization leadership is unable to drive innovation due to misunderstanding of innovation principles and change management at the leadership level. Recognizing success of Prof. Kotter's Leading Change model, the author adapts the model to managing the innovation change [1]. This paper presents application of the Leading Change to innovation management and providing guidance to organization leadership for innovation deployment. Innovation deployment has become a necessity for organizations in knowledge age for achieving competitive edge and sustaining profitable growth.
Conference Paper
Successful organizations anticipate the need to change. They do so with minimal effort and a focus on improving outcomes. This paper describes a systems-based approach by which organizations can become more adaptive and thus more agile, proactive, and innovative. The key idea is the alignment of vision and strategy, culture and beliefs, processes, plans, people, and desired outcomes. Such organizations have senior leadership that consistently and effectively communicate the vision and strategy (i.e., why the organization does what it does). The organization has a shared set of beliefs about why the vision and strategy are important. The organizational culture embraces innovative thought rather than rejecting such behavior. The resultant model is a codification of best practices based on a thorough review of the innovation, strategic management, leadership, and adaptive organization literature. The model was applied successfully in the transformation of a large, applied research organization.
Article
The strategic importance of R&D will be emphasised even more in the future. Continuous improvement of the effectiveness of R&D requires an adequate and comprehensive assessment and measurement system. The authors describe the present method, the quality and maturity method, QMM, for assessing the quality and maturity of R&D examines R&D from six viewpoints: R&D as part of business strategy, R&D as part of product and technology strategy, strategic implementation of R&D, R&D as a business section, R&D outputs, and implementation of R&D projects
Chapter
The Stanford Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, also known as the “d.school”, is an internationally celebrated hub of innovation. It has been active in spreading innovation culture and methods across the Stanford University community, Silicon Valley, and beyond. The d.school has created a strong culture of innovation that places hands-on, Design Thinking-based, team-based studio classes at its core. Central to the approach is its distinct perspective on design: the d.school believes that creativity can be cultivated, not just an innate quality. Anyone can be an innovative designer if they can unlock their creativity and utilize the right process. Its mission is to build creative confidence in every person who walks through its doors, and to make the design thinking method as accessible as possible.
Article
This book presents an analysis and synthesis of the key economic and management approaches to innovation, entrepreneurship, and technological change. The book provides precise definitions of key concepts, presents numerous historical examples to illustrate these concepts, outlines a framework for analyzing key topics, compares and contrasts different theoretical frameworks, and emphasizes international comparisons of innovation infrastructure and technology policy.
Book
This book presents and discusses the main strategic and organizational challenges posed by Big Data and analytics in a manner relevant to both practitioners and scholars. The first part of the book analyzes strategic issues relating to the growing relevance of Big Data and analytics for competitive advantage, which is also attributable to empowerment of activities such as consumer profiling, market segmentation, and development of new products or services. Detailed consideration is also given to the strategic impact of Big Data and analytics on innovation in domains such as government and education and to Big Data-driven business models. The second part of the book addresses the impact of Big Data and analytics on management and organizations, focusing on challenges for governance, evaluation, and change management, while the concluding part reviews real examples of Big Data and analytics innovation at the global level. The text is supported by informative illustrations and case studies, so that practitioners can use the book as a toolbox to improve understanding and exploit business opportunities related to Big Data and analytics.
Conference Paper
This paper investigates the changing role of the CIO at organizational level with regard to the rise of big data and big data analytics as a potential source of innovation and competitive advantage. Thus, the paper aims to provide an empirical and theoretical contribution to the research on the topic, by further exploring the emergent properties and understandings related to the role of CIO as a consequence of the need to adopt advanced analytics technologies for mastering big data. To this end we present the results of a qualitative research based on grounded theory carried out on data concerning CIOs of large companies from different industries in the Italian market. A substantive theory is discussed, showing the role of generation gap and power of new entrants as well as of project and execution excellence on the making of identity and recognition of the CIO as relevant at the time of big data analytics. The paper thus addresses the information systems and innovation challenges to new forms of organizing related to the CIO role, particularly with regard to IT and innovation units in incumbent businesses and corporations.