The presented paper is devoted to the concept of Innovation Maturity Models. It includes the general overview of the phenomenon, its definition, purpose, and types; apart from that, the examples of different kinds of IMM are presented as well. Four of them are analyzed and compared, and it is concluded that neither of them is perfect, and most of them are meant for different purposes. Still, the systemic innovation maturity framework (SIMF) as described by Wilkins and Holtham is chosen as the most theoretically advanced one. The presented models are primarily basic, which makes the paper more generalizable.
IMM: Definition, Purpose, Types, and Examples
The definition of IMM depends on the definition of innovation. For example, an IMM, which is presented in the work of Leminen and Westerlund, includes the stages of exploration, expansion, exploitation, and restraint (7). Lee, Olson and Trim propose a similar model with the final stage termed “declining” (826). However, it is obvious that the IMMs presented by these authors describe a single innovation, an innovative product rather than innovation as a process. Such models are of importance, and they can be integrated to define the lifecycle of a particular product, but in terms of the organization as a whole, the innovation should most certainly be regarded as a process. This process was defined, for example, by Drucker who had referred to it as to a tool of entrepreneurship aimed at continuous and uninterrupted searching for the opportunity to change (19).
Apart from that, the definition depends on the term “maturity model” (MM). An MM is a tool “designed to assess progress toward maturity” and “provide a systematic means to perform benchmarking and are considered to add value to organizations trying to achieve continuous improvement” (Pasian 187). Therefore, an IMM is a maturity assessing, benchmarking, and value-adding tool meant for the innovation processes.
The specific aims of MM can vary, and there are different types of MM. For example, depending on the purpose and complexity, MM can be divided into basic, descriptive, and perspective ones, with the latter providing the greatest amount of details (Röglinger, Pöppelbuß, and Becker 332). The first type can be used for preliminary assessment; the second provides a deeper understanding of the situation; the third one is a strategic tool rather than an assessing one. However, it should be pointed out that the two-second types of MM are not generalizable, they are meant for particular circumstances.
For example, Enkel, Bell, and Hogenkamp use the direction of the famous Capability Maturity Model (CMM), which will be described below, to create an MM for Open Innovation (OI), a part of innovative activities that involve “the use of external resources in R&D” (1162). In the process of their work, the authors introduce three key process areas of OI that can indicate its maturity, including climate for innovation, partnership capacity, and internal processes, and each of these groups incorporates the minimum of six sub-elements (Enkel, Bell, and Hogenkamp 1176). This model is a second-type descriptive one, and it uses a basic one for specific purposes.
Apart from that, MM can include different numbers of levels. For example, the OIMM by Enkel, Bell, and Hogenkamp includes five stages (that are indistinguishable from CMM), but the model created by Habicht, Möslein, and Reichwald is four-staged (beginning with the zero levels), even though the object described by the two IMM and their basis (CMM) are identical. Naturally, Habicht, Möslein, and Reichwald also included completely different indicators (105-106). In other words, depending on the researchers’ aims and understanding as well as the model’s purpose, the characteristics of IMM can differ.
Examples of Basic IMM
To make this paper more generalizable, mostly basic IMMs will be analyzed, but to demonstrate the possibilities of various types of models, the number of their stages will range from three to five.
EFQM IMM
The simplest maturity model that is going to be presented was developed by the European Foundation for Quality Management; hence, it can be named EFQM IMM. (Robinson et al. 208). It consists of three stages only. The start-up stage corresponds to the immaturity level, when the company has acknowledged the importance of innovation and intends to develop it, but has not achieved any results yet. The on-the-way stage corresponds to the continuous improvement and a noticeable development of the innovational process. Finally, the mature stage is characterized by a high level of innovational maturity. This IMM is the most basic one, and it only suitable for most general assessments.
Zero-level IMM
The four-step IMM is presented by Habicht, Möslein, and Reichwald (107). Technically, it is aimed at OI (and it is descriptive in nature), but it can be described as a basic strategy as well if the details are omitted. The first stage (level 0) presupposes the absence of innovation or its poor and chaotic character. The second stage (level 1) means that the necessity for innovation is acknowledged, but it is still being tuned. In fact, it is being tuned throughout the level 2 stage as well. Level 2 is characterized by learning and understanding the processes of innovation. In order to transit to the level 3, the company needs to involve long-term thinking in the innovation process and perfectly align it with the business strategy.
The creators of this IMM did acknowledge CMM as one of their sources, but they had modified it to the extent, which makes it difficult to claim that the zero-level IMM is based on CMM. The name “zero-level IMM” was created for this paper.
CMM-based IMM
The maturity model proposed by Narayana is based on the Capability Maturity Model and technically presents an interpretation of CMM in the context of innovation management with certain modifications (768). Let us briefly describe CMM as well. Basically, CMM is a process maturity model, which makes it applicable to most processes, including innovation (Enkel, Bell, and Hogenkamp 1164).
Created by Watts Humphrey in 1989, this model is still very popular (Carroll and Helfert 282). It describes process maturity in five stages that include the initial (the absence of order), repeatable (relative order achieved through documentation), defined (the standardization of the process), managed (the effective management of the process), and optimizing ones (the management incorporates enhancing the process).
The CMM-based model of Narayana considers the processes of innovation, the level of control dedicated to them, and the actions that can help to achieve this level of control; only some of them will be mentioned here. The basic stage of the model corresponds to the initial one in CMM: it presupposes chaotic innovation without proper strategies. Recognized stage means aligning innovation to the business strategy of a division or the company as a whole, which should help to improve the control over the previously chaotic process. Managed stage involves the development of formal methods and techniques that solidify the control.
The fourth stage (termed as assessed) involves peer assessment, active implementation of the techniques from the third level, as well as continuous and controlled change. The final stage (learning or optimizing) is concerned with continuous learning and improvement of the processes and the control over them.
SIMF
Wilkins and Holtham interpret a similar model to include more details concerning the nature of the innovation maturity and its foci, which results in a “systemic innovation maturity framework,” SIMF (743). Moreover, the authors also incorporate the concepts of the innovation climate and culture in the model. The terminology changes: the first stage that is basically identical to that of the previous IMM is termed ‘innocence;’ just like in the previous model, in this case, the focus of innovation is random. During the second stage of “awareness,” the innovation is most often focused on product development (or research and development), but the processes are still not formed.
Once the company becomes interested in the process and focuses on them, the third stage of maturity occurs (termed “hope”). At this stage, the methods, tools, and policies of the innovation process of the company are being created, which is also similar to the third stage of the previous model. This level may be correlated with the establishment of the innovation culture: a set of company’s policies and activities that are aimed at fostering innovation (Siu 15).
The fourth stage targets the people, the mindset. Therefore, this stage (that cannot occur without the previous ones and, therefore, includes them) corresponds to the development of the innovation climate of the company: the complex, multidimensional environment that is capable of fostering innovation (Lee et al. 1719). The fifth stage, “excellence” is characterized by developed and advanced innovation culture and climate and a deep understanding of innovation processes; the focus, in this case, is concerned with the innovation climate as such. The whole model is, therefore, the process of developing the innovational culture and climate. This is the major addition of Wilkins and Holtham to the IMM.
Comparison
All the presented models have their advantages and disadvantages. EFQM IMM is very simple, which is both a plus and a minus: it is perfectly suitable for a short appraisal, but in case a more detailed description is necessary, it will be regarded as deficient. Zero-level IMM is the golden middle between three- and five-stage options; apart from that, it has introduced an interesting concept of the zero levels.
The idea of regarding this stage as a part of the system is understandable: it is necessary to define the place of the underdeveloped and immature innovation in companies. However, it should be pointed out that the other two models that include this stage fail to emphasize its difference, and only zero-level IMM demonstrates the fact that it technically corresponds to the absence of innovation. Possibly, it is just a matter of terminology, but given the fact that terminology helps to understand the process of innovation maturity, this introduction appears to be most reasonable.
The five-stage models are the most detailed of the presented ones. Here, it should be pointed out that the CMM-based model is much more detailed; SIMF, despite covering a greater number of theoretical issues, almost completely neglects specific actions. At the same time, theoretically, SIMF takes the IMMs presented here on a new level: it consistently ties together the process of innovation maturity and that of the innovation climate building. This aspect is a major advantage of the final model.
Apart from that, it can be noted that while the models are similar in many respects (to the point of correlations of some of their levels, as has been demonstrated), they are all unique. For example, SIMF, zero-level, and CMM-based models all include the process of the understanding of innovation processes, and all of them regard this stage as a middle one. At the same time, they describe this stage differently and require different accomplishments that would allow the admission to the next one: for example, zero-level IMM is the only one that emphasizes the differences between short- and long-term perspectives. Similarly, the CMM-based model insists on control while SIMF emphasizes culture.
In general, EFQM IMM, zero-level IMM, and SIMF differ to the extent that makes defining which one of them is better impossible: they are obviously meant for different purposes. With the SIMF and CMM-based models, the situation may be different. They are much more similar, and, as a result, it can be concluded that SIMF is more advanced. The details of the CMM-based model suggest the possibility of its partial incorporation in SIMF: in this case, an advanced and detailed IMM would be produced.
Apart from that, if a hybrid IMM was to be created, it might be logical to include the idea of zero level and long-term perspective in it. In this case, the resulting IMM would incorporate the advantages of most of the presented models (except for EFQM IMM that is the quintessence of a basic IMM).
Choice and Recommendations
In order to assess the innovation maturity of a large organization, it might be most logical to use the hybrid model. Apart from that, given the information on the specific description and prescription IMM, it can be suggested that a large company is most likely to have one created for its particular situation. Apart from that, it can request an IMM for a particular department as well (Narayana 768). However, it is also possible to choose one of the presented models.
EFQM IMM can be used only for a brief and basic assessment. Zero-level IMM can be regarded as a model that is slightly more advanced, but it is still very simple; depending on the customer’s needs, it may be suitable. If not, the most advanced model appears to be the most reasonable choice. The innovation maturity of a large organization is a matter of maintaining competitiveness; its importance is difficult to overestimate, and managers all over the world acknowledge this fact (Robbins and O’Gorman 90; Lee, Olson and Trimi 824).
For example, the survey carried out by Chesbrough and Brunswicker returned the results, according to which 78% of the companies studied have been practicing OI, and 82% of those were working to improve the maturity of their OI (16). Their managers did not regard innovation as a panacea but were certain that it was necessary to stay competitive (Chesbrough and Brunswicker 24). Innovation is truly “imperative” nowadays, and, as a result, the more advanced model is naturally the most viable option for a large company (Lee, Olson and Trimi 824).
Apart from that, the specific features of SIMF are of consequence for the company: in other words, it is likely to benefit from the focus on the development of the innovation climate. For example, a study by Al-Bahussin and El-Garaihy proves that there is a strong positive correlation between innovative corporate culture and knowledge management, which is, in turn, related to innovation maturity and competitive advantages (12). Apart from that, the study of Lee et al. demonstrates that innovation climate also tends to improve employees’ job satisfaction (1719). All of these facts emphasize the significance of the final model’s focus and make it the most reasonable option (12).
One might object that the most detailed character of the first CMM-based model can also attract a bigger company. As fairly pointed out by Robbins and O’Gorman, modern theories are often neglectful of the mechanism of innovation, and SIMF is among those overly theoretical models while the CMM-based IMM does provide a more detailed insight in the process of maturity achievement (90). However, it should be pointed out that the models presented here are basic; they are meant for the quick appraisal of the situation, and not for detailed description and planning. Therefore, of these three basic models, the final one (SIMF) would be most suitable for the preliminary assessment of the innovation maturity of a large organization. The specific needs of the company might influence its choice, but if a general case is taken into account, SIMF is the most advanced and appropriate IMM for the situation.
Works Cited
Al-Bahussin, Sami, and Wael El-Garaihy. “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices, Organisational Culture, Organisational Innovation and Knowledge Management on Organisational Performance in Large Saudi Organisations: Structural Equation Modeling with Conceptual Framework.”International Journal of Business and Management 8.22 (2013): 1-19. ProQuest. Web.
Carroll, Noel, and Markus Helfert. “Service Capabilities Within Open Innovation”. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 28.2 (2015): 275-303. Emerald. Web.
Chesbrough, Henry, and Sabine Brunswicker. “A Fad Or a Phenomenon? the Adoption of Open Innovation Practices in Large Firms.” Research Technology Management 57.2 (2014): 16-25. ProQuest. Web.
Drucker, Peter F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London, UK: Routledge, 2014. Print.
Enkel, Ellen, John Bell, and Hannah Hogenkamp. “Open Innovation Maturity Framework.” International Journal of Innovation Management 15.6 (2011): 1161-89. Business Source Complete. Web.
Habicht, Hagen, Kathrin M. Möslein, and Ralf Reichwald. “Open Innovation Maturity”. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations 2.1 (2012): 92-111. IGI Global. Web.
Lee, Ching-Sung, Yen-Cheng Chen, Pei-Ling Tsui, and Tung-Han Yu. “Examining the Relations Between Open Innovation Climate and Job Satisfaction with a PLS Path Model.” Quality and Quantity 48.3 (2014): 1705-22. ProQuest. Web.
Lee, Sang M., David L. Olson, and Silvana Trimi. “Co‐Innovation: Convergenomics, Collaboration, and Co‐Creation For Organizational Values”. Management Decision 50.5 (2012): 817-31. ProQuest. Web.
Leminen, Seppo, and Mika Westerlund. “Categorizing the Growth Strategies of Small Firms.” Technology Innovation Management Review 2.5 (2012): 5-9.ProQuest. Web.
Narayana, Mandaleeka. “A Framework Approach to Measure Innovation Maturity”. IEEE International Engineering Management Conference 2 (2005): 765-69. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers. Web.
Pasian, Beverly. “Extending The Concept And Modularization Of Project Management Maturity With Adaptable, Human And Customer Factors”. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 7.2 (2014): 186-214. Web.
Robbins, Peter, and Colm O’Gorman. “Innovating The Innovation Process: An Organisational Experiment In Global Pharma Pursuing Radical Innovation.” R&D Management 45.1 (2015): 76-93. Business Source Complete. Web.
Robinson, Hilde, Patricia Carrillo, Chimay J. Anumba, and Ahmed M. Al-Ghassani. “Review And Implementation Of Performance Management Models In Construction Engineering Organizations”. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management 5.4 (2005): 203-17. ProQuest. Web.
Röglinger, Maximilian, Jens Pöppelbuß, and Jörg Becker. “Maturity Models In Business Process Management”. Business Process Mgmt Journal 18.2 (2012): 328-46. Web.
Siu, Loon Hoe. “Measuring an Organization’s Innovation Climate: A Case Study from Singapore.” Development and Learning in Organizations 25.6 (2011): 13-5. ProQuest. Web.
Wilkins, Andy, and Clive Holtham. “Organizational Creativity: Building a Business Ba-Haus?” Creative Education 3 (2012): 737-45. ProQuest. Web.