Today, innovation management is an integral part of every company, which strives for a competitive advantage. Innovation management includes both product innovation and organizational innovation. Since there are many opportunities for any company’s growth, innovation management introduces a number of tools that allow them to find, understand and evaluate these opportunities. Workers at every level of the organizational structure are involved in the creative process of product development or marketing planning. This is how innovative ideas are introduced.
Among numerous innovation management tools, there are such tools as project management, portfolio management, brainstorming, etc. However, one of the most important aspects of facilitating innovation is the ability to measure success, which includes inputs and outputs of the innovation process.
In today’s increasingly globalized market scene, innovation is essential for companies in terms of driving revenue and obtaining a larger share of the market. At the same time, many companies find it hard to improve innovation performance. Despite the fact that there is an abundance of various tools utilized to measure the level of innovation, companies still struggle to identify what position they occupy and how to reach the next level. One of the ways to effectively measure their innovation level is to employ an innovation maturity model, which is a critical method to be used in order to improve productivity and marketing and increase revenue.
There are a number of reasons for organizations to assess their innovation maturity level. It is widely known that innovation is essential; however, there is no perfect systematic strategy of managing it, since innovation is regarded as a purely creative force of development. Hence, numerous organizations are left with vague pursuits in the form of separate projects or ideas without a chance to assess the real value of such ideas and projects in PPS. Therefore, the innovation maturity model is a powerful tool for organization’s innovation evaluation and management, which may be executed either on a department or organizational level.
Capability Maturity Model Integration
Capability maturity model integration framework was introduced by Carnegie Mellon University. The model is focused on three major areas: tools, processes and people. It includes a wide range of processes ranging from ideation to the end of the product life cycle. In spite of the fact that organizations are highly focused on the development of new products, the model developers underline the importance of managing the full product life cycle, since a lot of resources are also required to stop producing and marketing a product.
Capability maturity model integration framework enables companies to assess their level of maturity in the areas of human resources, processes and tools on a five level scale, where level one is the lowest and level five is the highest. This model is used to evaluate each category and achieve an overall assessment. In addition, a capability maturity model integration framework provides an opportunity to compare the company’s performance in terms of innovation with best practices in the industry.
Apart from providing a clear picture of the place occupied by the organization in terms of innovation, this model also enables to come to an agreement as for what the future of the company will be according to the executives. While some companies aim at reaching level five, others may strive to achieve level three. This way or another, the model encourages managers to set the goals and measure the work performance in a uniform manner.
In order to understand the way capability maturity model integration framework works, it is important to consider the three aspects independently. The area of human resources is concentrated on managing the organizational structure in such a way that innovation will be systematically managed encompassing the full product portfolio. The companies with a high innovation maturity level have a center for process excellence, which includes highly qualified workers; consequently, it is well organized and efficient. In addition, such centers have a well established communication system with executive managers, who are aware of the importance of innovation and align it with the corporate strategy. In high innovation maturity organizations, decisions are made as a result of intense cooperation and collaboration. All the workers involved in the innovation process are aware of their role and contribute to reaching the innovation objectives. As a result, the organization has a clear picture of the business direction.
Processes area describes how well the automation of commercialization is managed. Since the market rapidly changes, there is an increasing need to meet customers’ expectations. For this reason, companies with high innovation maturity level gradually improve the dynamics and adaptability of the processes’ automation. In addition, standardization of processes is required regarding both deliverables and reports. Portfolios are reviewed in relation to finances and available resources that have a competitive and environmental impact. It is a usual practice to terminate projects at the early stages of their development unless they prove to be successful. Another peculiar feature of the high innovation maturity level in the organizations is to continuously investigate the changing customers’ needs in order to ensure brand loyalty. Organizations, which conduct continuous research, gather the results and implement the new ideas to improve already launched products.
Tools area of the capability maturity model integration framework includes a well-established product portfolio management system, which helps to automate the processes. Product portfolio management systems are often applied in combination with the enterprise resource planning and the product lifecycle management. Insights are gathered by means of purpose-built applications that allow for the cooperation with the customers. The product launching plan is dependent on corporate strategy as well as the execution with the help of product portfolio management system. Another tool utilized to assess resource capacity is what-if analysis. The whole product portfolio is monitored with the help of the product portfolio management system to distribute and use the resources wisely to create a number of products.
Although it is essential to understand what areas capability maturity model integration framework deals with, it is of no less importance to distinguish the levels of maturity. The primary goal of the knowledge is the ability to compare one’s own organization with the industry pioneers. At level one and two, companies often have similar fears associated with the absence of process support and technological structures, which minimize planning and communication failures. For instance, communication between different project teams is not given much attention. Some organizations do not strive for a higher level of innovation. This may be explained by the fact that innovation is not a priority of a particular product, especially products of “cash cow” category.
At the third level of innovation maturity, companies use technology to search for and allocate data and resources as well as monitor the execution. Managers at these organizations manage communication processes by dividing large information systems and monitoring commercialization processes. These are the reasons why the companies witness the benefits of transferring to a higher level of innovation maturity.
At levels four and five, organizations eagerly accept the importance of capability maturity model integration framework. These companies understand that innovation is a systematic process, which requires continuous improvement, evaluation, monitoring and assessment. They spend a lot of resources and finances for processes, human resources and tools to achieve sustainability in innovation. Cross-functional project teams, dynamic processes and PPM are the practical examples of how companies achieve sustainability.
The successful implementation of capability maturity model integration framework also depends on a number of factors. First, it is critical to objectively assess the level of maturity. The process of evaluation may be complicated by the fact that workers and executive managers might have different opinions; therefore, it is important to reach an agreement as for the level of maturity in order to employ the model effectively.
Another factor influencing effective implementation of the model is corporate culture. Companies that reached high innovation maturity levels have a culture that is prone to failure. Executive managers should strive for innovation so that workers at all levels of the organization would know how important it is to quickly move forward once they fail at some point.
Finally, organizations should have a strategy, which would enable them to see where they are going and what methods are to be employed. Capability maturity model integration framework not only allows the company to see what position it occupies and where it is moving but also helps to connect the strategy and execution. This in turn will help the company to obtain a competitive advantage.
Self-Service Maturity Framework
Today, it can be observed that both private and public services are consumed in a different way. Technological breakthroughs prompt organizations to reconsider and innovate the way they deliver their services. Popularization of smartphones and social media has changed consumers’ expectations from service providers. An advantage for companies to initiate provision of self-services is evident from the fact that technology makes it cost-effective and brings an added value to customers. Customers find self-service channels attractive since providers become more customer oriented. Thus, the increasing interest towards self-services results in the fact that some of them become a successful practice, while others do not baffle too many organizations or researchers.
Self-service maturity framework was developed in order to assist companies to evaluate the maturity level in relation to the components of the framework. The framework consists of four sections. The first section is devoted to the analysis of the channels by which customers interact with the organization. Web slot identifies to what extent the company’s websites are user-friendly. The other three slots are named mobile, kiosk and telephone. The second section is entitled to assess client’s functions such as obtaining information, managing identity, and determining eligibility, applying or paying for services, managing and notifying cases, fulfilling services or resolving issues. The next section evaluates management’s functions. This includes multichannel service strategy and policy, business and service processes, performance, risk and financial management, organization and culture. The last section is devoted to the assessment of technology and infrastructure. This section is broken down into the following categories: channels and channel support services; personalization and delivery service components; messaging, adaptor and legacy systems; technology service components; data warehousing and external data integration.
Self-service maturity framework is a tool that enables the majority of the organizations to compare their performance against each section and slot to identify self-service maturity level. At the initial stages, it is important to figure out whether some of the components are missing in the organization. Later, they should evaluate the maturity of the components that have already been developed. The assessment is usually carried out with the help of Excel tools. This enables the organization to identify the gaps between the current state of maturity level and the intended one. It is also crucial to mention that every organization strives for different levels of maturity in relation to each component of the framework. However, such components as technology and infrastructure are the areas in which organizations have to strive to achieve higher levels of innovation maturity.
Self-service maturity framework is employed with an aim of understanding current trends, tactics, benefits and costs in relation to each component as well as obtaining an overall picture at an organizational level. This framework is a five-scale model, which includes the following levels: engagement, developing, defined, mature and transformative. In order to illustrate how the model works there is a need to look at the first two levels. On the first (engagement level), the company has limited insights into customers and their behavior. The company is also characterized by a limited number of self-service channels and a number of digital interactions.
Organizations at this level are focused on simply getting the information online. When it comes to management functions, it appears that the company at the engagement level has no formal policies or processes. In addition, the company has limited means to gather and use data and strategic planning. The main features of technology and infrastructure components are extremely limited integration, limited data and siloed systems.
At the developing level a company develops preliminary insights on users, increases the number of self-service channels and digital interactions, and focuses on basic interactions such as FAQs. Management functions are improved since at the developing level the company initiates policies and processes, starts gathering data and considers strategic planning. Integration and data management are also initiated.
An increasing number of organizations step out of the box to build their services around their customers’ life. This is triggered by the management’s desire to improve customers’ experience with their services as well as to encourage the use of self-services. By bringing the value added services, they strive for innovation and consequently competitive advantage. This tendency gives clients a greater priority over services. “A citizen-centric approach to user interface design ensures that functionality will be aligned with citizen and business needs and preferences” (Deloitte 2013).
Business Process Maturity Model
Nowadays, executive management does not have standards, which would enable them to evaluate their business processes. “As a result, they have no method to assess the risk immature processes pose to enterprise IT projects, or to identify the causes of weaknesses in their process workflows that, if addressed, could reduce cost and increase operating efficiency” (Curtis & Alden 2007). In order to address the above-mentioned issues, the business process maturity model has been developed. It enables companies to evaluate business process maturity and manage improvement of the business processes “from immature, inconsistent business activities to mature, disciplined processes” (Curtis & Alden 2007). There are a number of stages that organization has to go through in order to reach the level of maturity. Each stage provides a foundation for further improvement direction; therefore, the process of improvement is well-planned and logical.
The central idea of BPMM is to provide a roadmap for continuous improvement of systems and workforce. In other words, the framework does more than simply identifying risks. It also provides a clear direction to successful implementation of a company’s applications. Business process maturity model intends to meet five different challenges (Van Looy 2014).
The first challenge faced by companies is absence or a small number of standards that would help an organization reach maturity of business processes. Consequently, the organization requires approaches and tools to recognize risks in order to reach business goals. Another challenge is absence of methods, which would allow management to identify the differences between the performance of the tasks and the way they are presented. The next challenge is associated with the fact that “management is often unaware of the extent to which organic growth or acquisitions have resulted in multiple ways of performing similar tasks” (Curtis & Alden 2007). In addition, companies rarely employ methods to enhance supplier’s competence. That is why they need to thoroughly outline their requirements in contracts with suppliers. The final challenge the business process maturity model addresses is the absence of standards as for how to implement “the business process foundations required for organizational agility and lower operating costs” (Curtis & Alden 2007).
In order to assess the practices envisioned by the BPMM, seven types of evidence are used: “1 review of artifacts that are produced by performing a process; 2 review of artifacts that support performing a process; 3 interviews with individuals or groups who perform a process; 4 interviews with individuals who manage or oversee the performance of a process; 5 interviews with individuals who support the performance of the process; 6 quantitative data used to characterize the state of the organization and/or the attitudes and behaviors of those in it; 7 quantitative data describing the performance of a process, its outcomes, and business results” (Curtis & Alden 2007).
Business process maturity model provides four types of appraisals. They guarantee that the processes in this framework are implemented in such a way that the practices achieve the set goals. Starter appraisal refers to a minor and not expensive appraisal, which usually lasts no longer than several days and is aimed at getting an overall picture of compliance with the BPMM.
“Progress appraisal ⎯ an investigation of all process areas and practices within the maturity level scope of an appraisal to establish progress toward achieving a maturity level or to anticipate the results of a confirmatory appraisal” (Curtis & Alden 2007). This appraisal lasts longer than a week. It involves gathering quantitative data, which is matched with the results of interviews and artifacts under study.
Supplier appraisal resembles progress appraisal. Quantitative data is also gathered. However, the obtained results may be used to enhance the quality of contracts with suppliers. The last type of appraisal is confirmatory appraisal, which involves rigorous exploration of all the areas of business processes (seven forms of evidence).
Comparing the Models
The three innovation maturity models described above are aimed at solving different practical problems. Nevertheless, developers underline the importance of continuous improvement of all the three models. Capability maturity model integration is focused on the three aspects of innovation: human resources, process and tools, whereas self-service maturity framework breaks the analysis down into four different sections: channels, client’s function, management’s function, and technology and infrastructure. The business process maturity model addresses five challenges faced by any organization. It is evident that each of the models was designed to serve a particular goal and addresses different areas of business. The strengths of each model include the fact that every model addresses a particular area of management. Capability maturity model analyzes the human resource sector, processes and tools; however, it fails to address customers’ needs and service provision in terms of self-service maturity framework. Even though the business processes maturity model is focused on processes improvement, it does not address such issues as corporate culture and does not provide a roadmap for enhancing workers’ awareness as for the importance of innovations. Self-service maturity model in its turn addresses the self-service process and improvement of interaction with customers but it does not take into account, for instance, relationships with suppliers. It also does not address numerous issues within the internal corporate environment.
The decision as for what model to apply is dictated by both the internal and external environment of the organization, its vision and mission. Rapidly changing global market, customers’ expectations and development of new technologies prompt managers to seek systematic and ongoing methods of improvement. Such factors as the type of the organization, the level of development and the industry in which the company operates also trigger the choice of the model.
In order to assess a large organization’s innovation maturity level self-service maturity framework would be chosen. The reason for that is an increasing popularity of self-services among consumers. Since self-services are an interaction between the organization and the consumer without the involvement of the live agent. Many customers find it attractive to co-create the service with the system at the convenient pace and as a rule with increased efficiency.
One of the strengths of this framework for a large organization is the fact that it enables to figure out whether the company understands the customers and meets their needs. Consumers are the ones who drive the market forward in a particular direction and to achieve competitive advantage an organization has to continuously invest in gathering customers’ insights. Co-creation is one of the methods of gathering insights and it is effectively employed during the self-service practices. “Consumers elect to avail themselves of self-service technologies for a number of reasons, which are specific to them and not to the company that provides the service. These include ease of use, avoidance of service personnel, saving time, availability of the service where and when the customer requires it, saving money” (Oliver, Livermore & Sudweeks 2009). Taking into account the increasing popularity of the self-services, it needs to be admitted that a company striving for a competitive advantage must have a tool for assessment and continuous improvement of the services and one of such tools is the self-service framework.