4.4.8.2
Requirement Practices
Requirement Practices are one level of aggregation lower than the Capability Requirements (see Figure 15). They are the generic practices pertaining to a specific Capability Requirement at a specific level of maturity Lifecycle Execution
Innovation lifecycle realisation ML ML
ALIGNED
LE-IL1 Organisational awareness of the lifecycle and design lifecycle concepts and their application to innovation management and initiative
progression 2 KE-KL1 KE-UC1 KE-PC2 2
2 2 2 YES
INTERDEPENDENCIES/DEPENDENCIES
Capability Area Capability Requirement
Requirement Practice Requirement Practice Code
Interdependent/Dependent Requirement Practice Code Interdependent/Dependent Maturity Level Requirement Practice Maturity Level
Maximum Maturity Level of Interdependents Maturity Level
Maturity Levels Aligned?
LE
KE OE
Continuous and concurrent execution of innovation lifecycle
Creation, consolidation, diffusion and utilisation of knowledge to support innovation initiatives Innovation conducive organisational environment
Contextualisation Tool
and that contribute to the fulfilment of that Capability Requirement at the given level of maturity. Requirement Practices are therefore the fundamental building blocks of innovation capability maturity. The more practices the organisation fulfils, the more it is contributing to its innovation capability maturity.
Practices should, however, not be fulfilled in an ad hoc manner. Strong interdependencies and dependencies exist between practices within different Capability Requirements and within different Innovation Capability Areas. Certain practices are more difficult, and others almost impossible to achieve without having achieved certain other practices first. Requirement Practices are therefore presented in maturity levels (see Section 4.4.6 and Appendix B) that structure and grade them, and provide a step-wise innovation capability maturity improvement path. All practices within a specific maturity level and all practices within lower maturity levels must be achieved on a consistent basis for the organisation to have attained that level of innovation capability maturity. The organisation therefore utilises the maturity levels as a step-wise guide for improving innovation capability (after having established its innovation capability maturity status quo).
The 239 Requirements Practices of the ICMM v1 are depicted in Appendix B. These practices were identified through a comprehensive study of literature from various fields and the iterative construction process (as described in Section 4.4.4 and Figure 14). The graduation of Requirement Practices into maturity levels was, however, not as straightforward. The perceived level of difficulty and complexity associated with the practices was used to create the first-cut of the maturity level groupings. Integrated consideration of the following aspects assisted in doing so:
the level of organisational understanding necessary to fulfil the practice.
the level of integration with other practices necessary to fulfil that particular practice.
the level of integration of organisational resources necessary to fulfil the practice.
dependence on other complex practices being fulfilled.
the level of skill necessary from individuals performing the practice.
the necessary utilisation of complex systems, tools, techniques or methods, etc.
The result of this process was a first-cut version of the maturity-level grouped Requirement Practices for each of the Capability Requirements. What was, however, evident throughout this process (and as has been previously mentioned) was the existence of strong interdependencies and dependencies with other practices outside of the respective requirement groups. This is addressed in Section 4.4.8.3.
Note the manner in which innovation capability maturity progression is depicted in Appendix B. Maturity levels are sequentially ordered and the practices of each maturity level are grouped together. The blocks filled in light yellow represent level 2, while the blocks filled in dark orange represent maturity level 5 – the heightened level of maturity assigned to an organisation having fulfilled that particular practice. Remember,
however, that to be a complete level 4 organisation, for example, all practices within maturity level 4 must be fulfilled.
4.4.8.3
Requirement Practice dependencies and interdependencies
The nature of maturity models is such that various dependencies and interdependencies exist within a particular grouping of practices – Capability Requirements in this case. These relations are also directional.
To illustrate, consider the practices for a particular Capability Requirement within maturity level x. These practices within maturity level x exhibit mutual dependence with one another, i.e., interdependence. This is obvious considering the need for their collective fulfilment for an organisation to have fulfilled that maturity level for that Capability Requirement. This concept is illustrated in Figure 18.
The practices of maturity level x are, however, only dependent on the fulfilment of practices within maturity level x – 1. This is not a reciprocal relationship because the practices of maturity level x – 1 must be achievable without the fulfilment of practices within maturity level x. This is the nature of all staged maturity models and inherent to the progression of organisational maturity. This concept is also illustrated in Figure 18.
These previously mentioned relations are implicit – they occur as a result of the practices contributing to the fulfilment of the same requirement. There are, however, interdependencies that exist between practices within different Capability Requirements representing the same level of maturity. These practices therefore show a mutual dependency, necessitating concurrent fulfilment efforts in order to achieve one of the practices, but then also implying the achievement of the other. This logic is obvious when considering practices of the same Capability Requirement having implicit relations. Less obvious, however, are the interdependencies between practices from different requirements. In an effort to address this, attempts have been made to make explicit some of these interdependencies (see Appendix B).
The question of whether a bi-directional interdependency or one-directional dependency exists between two practices was ever present. Throughout the exercise of identifying the interdependencies, arguments for a one-directional relationship could be made. Nevertheless, these relationships were also included in Appendix B, so that at a minimum, the link identified between these two practices was recorded. Certain instances were, however, clearer than others. Of the apparent one-directional relations, it was a requirements that one of the practices (the dependent) be in a higher level of maturity than the other, i.e., the practice in level x is dependent on the practice in level x – 1. This is essential; otherwise there would be discrepancy in maturity level alignment.
Thus, this list of interdependencies and dependencies served a further purpose. They were used as a means to ensure the maturity-level alignment of Requirement Practices. It is obvious that if interdependence exists between two practices, then those practices must be in the same maturity level for the interdependence to be executable. This actually proved vital in identifying discrepancies in terms of the first-cut attempt at assigning maturity levels to practices. On numerous occasions, assigned maturity levels had to be adjusted
to cater for interdependencies and dependencies between practices. This obviously created a ripple effect throughout the model because of the large network of interdependencies and dependencies. Such instances could only be corrected using a general understanding of the requirements, their practices, and general logic to assign maturity levels in such a way that alignment was ensured.