Content uploaded by Abdelkader Achi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdelkader Achi on Jul 15, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
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 identification 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. 78–90, 2016.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-39564-7_8
organizations are impacted by information technologies [26,38]. While each company
defines its own strategy to cope with these changes, many companies have difficulty to
define 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 benefits of using maturity models [2].
However, there are still many open questions about innovation-specific 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 scientific
as well as practitioners oriented literature, we provide a classification 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
defining 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
findings 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
definition. 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 “innovativeness”the 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 definition. 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 firm level,
thus provisionally overcoming the challenges associated to establishing a semantic
definition 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 fields 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 classified, e.g., as initial,managed,defined,quantitatively managed,optimizing
[17,35]. Therefore, strengthening an organization’s 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 flexibility 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 specific characteristics. Among those models, we then choose those that are
specifically dedicated to innovation management.
3 Innovation Maturity Models in Research and Practice
The use of maturity models in companies has intensified and it has recently expanded
in various fields. 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 defined:
–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 defined in the CMMI model [36], representing an assessment of
maturity of the whole organization. In CMMI models [21] with a staged representation,
there are five maturity levels (initial, managed, defined, quantitatively managed, opti-
mizing) that consist of a predefined set of process areas; each of the five 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 five maturity levels of
the first CMMI model inspired most of the subsequent models. Furthermore, some
models have taken the five 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 Models’Structures 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 models’structures. Yet, all models
agree on a set of key factors suitable to improving a company ability to innovate; in
fact, it depends on firstly 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 identified: 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
identifies 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 defined 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 find the interactions between all
dimensions/factors. It exists therefore a synergistic effect that enhances the company’s
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
simplifies 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 first
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 organization’s 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 Innovation”is 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, defined, supported, aligned, synergised
B IMM 0 Not available
C SICMM 6 Incomplete, performed, disciplined, defined,
managed, optimized
D OIMF 5 Initial, repeatable, defined, managed, optimizing
E OIMMF 4 Closed, defined, 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, defined, 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, defined, 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
organization’s 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 (1979–1986),
TQM (1995–1998), ITIL (1980–2007) 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 “blueprint”actually evolving through different model instances as
well as configurations 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 identified in the
five maturity levels of the first CMMI model. Furthermore, strengthening an organi-
zation’s 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 first 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), 469–490 (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. 163–174. Springer, Heidelberg
(2016)
3. Berg, P., et al.: Assessment of quality and maturity level of R&D. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 78(1),
29–35 (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. 3–28. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014)
7. Chesbrough, H., Brunswicker, S.: Managing open innovation in large firms, survey report
(2013)
8. Chiesa, V., et al.: Development of a technical innovation audit. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 13
(2), 105–136 (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 model–development and
initial application. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 53, 435–446 (2009)
15. Essmann, H., Du Preez, N.: An innovation capability maturity model-development and
initial application. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 53, 435–446 (2009)
16. Essmann, H., Du Preez, N.: Practical cases of assessing innovation capability with a
theoretical model: the process and findings (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), 59–68 (2006)
23. Gupta, P.: Leading innovation change - the kotter way. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 3(3), 141–150
(2011)
24. Habicht, H., et al.: Open innovation maturity. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Organ. 2(1), 92–111
(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, 278–291 (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, 12–15 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 firms in China. Decis. Support Syst. 51(1), 88–98 (2011)
39. Rouse, W.B.: Necessary competencies for transforming an enterprise. J. Enterp. Transform.
1(1), 71–92 (2011)
40. Rouse, W.B.: Necessary competencies for transforming an enterprise. J. Enterp. Transform.
1(1), 71–92 (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. 76–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
42. Saraph, J.V., et al.: An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management.
Decis. Sci. 20(4), 810–829 (1989)
43. Szeto, E.: Innovation capacity: working towards a mechanism for improving innovation
within an inter-organizational networknull. TQM Mag. 12(2), 149–158 (2000)
44. Tidd, J., Hull, F.M.: Managing service innovation: the need for selectivity rather than “best
practice”. New Technol. Work Employ. 21(2), 139–161 (2006)
45. Toole, T.M., et al.: A tool for improving construction organizations’innovation capabilities.
In: Construction Research Congress 2010, pp. 727–836. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Canada (2010)
46. Vanhaverbeke, W., Chesbrough, H.: A classification of open innovation and open business
models. In: New Frontiers in Open Innovation, pp. 50–68. OUP Oxford, Oxford (2014)
47. Wang, C.L., Ahmed, P.K.: The development and validation of the organisational
innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 7(4),
303–313 (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. 76–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
49. Zawislak, P.A., et al.: Innovation capability: from technology development to transaction
capability. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 7(2), 14–27 (2012)
90 A. Achi et al.