ICMM scope of application

Generally, it can be stated that all organisations need to innovate. Some may argue that their operations are small and not very influential, and that they are only concerned with the day-to-day activities of creating sufficient profit for supporting their families and continuing business as usual. Other organisations may argue that their operations are so large, their practices so entrenched and their market share so stable that innovation is not a priority. These arguments are centred on the notions of survival and short-term

profitability. Individuals within these companies are content with merely surviving month after month, year after year. The attitude of, “Why fix things when they are not broken,” is common place. The notions of growth, increased profitability and long-term prosperity are simply not high priority. These organisations will claim that there is no utility in an Innovation Capability Maturity Model, or any such model, for their particular purposes.

It can, however, be argued that these claims are not founded on a clear understanding of the long-term needs of their organisations, but rather on an ignorance of the world around them. The world changes along with the creation of technology and the needs of people. It can simply not be stated that a market that exists today, the very market that these organisations are serving, will continue to exist in the future. How then can these organisations continue to survive? They can only survive if they change, but even the smallest of changes requires a certain degree of innovation to overcome the many obstacles presented by change. Essentially then, these individuals simply need convincing of the need to innovate. Once this need has been established, the utility of an Innovation Capability Maturity Model becomes apparent.

According to Kostoff et al. (2004), innovation maturity does not imply correlation with the size of an organisation. Large organisations do not necessarily exhibit a persistent ability to innovate, or an inability to do so for that matter. Evidence does, however, exist of smaller, more entrepreneurial firms without an established customer base, being more willing to take advantage of disruptive technologies and redefine current markets. Larger firms are less willing to cannibalise their own markets through the use of disruptive technologies. This is, however, not a reflection of their holistic capability to innovate, but rather a matter of comfort. Smaller organisations with no customer base do not operate within the same comfort zone as the larger, established organisations, and for this reason, are more willing to adopt disruptive technologies. The issue of improving innovation capability maturity is nevertheless equally applicable to both small and large organisations, as the eventual and incessant need to innovate affects them both.

From the above argument then, it is clear that organisations of all sizes will find a certain degree of utility in the Innovation Capability Maturity Model. Certain areas of the model may, however, prove less applicable to small organisations. This may be attributed to the lesser resources available to smaller organisations. Other factors may also play a role. Nevertheless, the concepts captured in this model are indispensable, even if only to create an understanding of what is required to be innovative. But even this is arguable, as the fundamental principles of innovation remain consistent and are independent of organisation size.

Furthermore, the model is independent of both industry and market. It is equally applicable to the technologically-driven automotive industry and the commoditised sugar industry, so long as they have identified the need to innovate. (If a product is commoditised, increased effort must be focused on process and strategy innovation in order to create the competitive advantage necessary.) The model is also applicable to both products and services, and any combination thereof. Again, this is because the fundamental principles that apply to innovation and innovation capability are consistent throughout the range of industries and organisational offerings.

The model is also independent of innovation type. The type of innovation referred to here is consistent with the discussions of Sections 1.1.2 and 3.1.2.2, i.e. product, process and strategy innovation, or any combination thereof (where product refers to both traditional products and services). The model does not distinguish between these types of innovation. The improved innovation capability brought about by the model is therefore applicable to all innovation types and combinations thereof, again because the fundamental principles remain consistent throughout.

The level of impact and degree of newness of an innovation were discussed in Section 1.1.3. The ICMM is intended to address both these dimensions of innovation. On the ends of the impact scale lie sustaining and discontinuous innovations. On the ends of the newness scale lie incremental and radical innovations. Both direct and indirect consideration of these dimensions, their respective scales, and the importance and role of each is addressed within the model. The model therefore provides context for these dimensions within innovation capability.

Based on the above arguments, the Innovation Capability Maturity Model is applicable to absolutely any organisation. The persistent argument is the consistency of the fundamental innovation principles. The deciding factor is, however, the will and appetite to innovate. Only once an organisation has identified a need to innovate is there scope for ICMM application. It may be that certain requirements or practices are deemed irrelevant for a particular organisation. The fact remains that the organisation will have been made aware of such requirements, and through careful deliberation and improved understanding, will have deemed those requirements and/or practices irrelevant. This already places the organisation in an improved position of innovation capability maturity.