From the summary presented in Table 7, it is clear that the impact and support provided for the lifecycle ranges from moderate to strong (based on the ratings used in Chapter 2 – Table 1). The weakest support provided for any phase is therefore perceived to be moderate in comparison to the phase receiving the most support. The weakest support provided is once again for the Recycle & Disposal phase. The discussions of Section 2.5 attributed this to the nature of the phase – it does not present significant opportunity to derive competitive advantage. The support provided by the ICMM is, however, substantially more than the support provided by the models analysed in Section 2.
The reason for this was identified in the Timeous disposal of initiatives capability requirement (see Appendix B for details). It is stating that although an organisation will not be able to create a competitive advantage by disposing of a particular business element, by not disposing of that business element once infeasible, competitive positioning could be negatively affected. This highlights the importance of executing the complete lifecycle of an initiative.
The final major difference between the ICMM and the other maturity models is the very strong support provided for the conceptualisation phase. This phase was emphasised as crucial for ensuring potential for significant returns from organisational initiatives. Within the Concept phase, the magnitude of the return that may be generated is decided. The Functional Analysis, Implementation, and Operation phases are necessary to ensure the fruition of this return. All these phases are crucial in terms of generating consistent innovative outputs. The models analysed in Chapter 2, however, exhibited a lack of impact and support for the conceptualisation phase, an issue that has been addressed in the ICMM. It is, however, important to reiterate that these models were designed to support the organisation in the design, implementation and operational aspects of initiatives, a matter that is evident in the domains of practice addressed by the models.
In summary, the ICMM impact and support for the complete generic lifecycle is more comprehensive than that provided by the maturity models of Chapter 2. This may be attributed to the integral role of the innovation lifecycle in the design and content of the model, thus fulfilling the requirements stipulated therefore in Chapter 2.
4.6.2 Case Study 1
This case study presented the opportunity to scrutinise the ICMM v1 from the diverse perspectives of multiple individuals. This would be an invaluable exercise in ensuring the improved robustness and broader applicability of the model. Ultimately, it would provide the objectives for the ICMM v1 refinement activities of Chapter 5.
The majority of the case study is based on a workshop that was held around the ICMM v1 and a questionnaire (see Section 4.6.2.2) developed therefore. The purpose was to evaluate the content and user friendliness of the model and the process of applying it. In addition to this, the workshop served to perform an Innovation Capability Evaluation of the organisation, i.e., determine its innovation capability maturity, and identify those Capability Requirements and Requirement Practices needed for the organisation to progress to
the next level. This case study and those of Chapter 7 are therefore bi-directional in purpose – and intended to be mutually beneficial.
4.6.2.1
Description of case study
As previously mentioned, the case study was primarily based on the proceedings of a workshop. It was conducted with the retail department of a major South African insurer at an off-site location. This would ensure that the setting was conducive to open discussion and free from the interruptions of the normal working environment.
Details of the organisation will not be provided to ensure confidentiality. However, it is important to describe the basic profile of participants, as it impacts the interpretation of results. Ten questionnaires were completed of which 6 were completed by senior-level executives within the organisation and 4 by consultants who had played a significant role in a recent radical innovation initiative.
It had been decided up-font that the maturity evaluation would address two periods. Each question would therefore be answered twice – once for the organisational status around October 2003, and once for the status around October 2006. These periods were related to the pre- and post- implementation of the radical innovation initiative. By doing this, any improvement or deterioration in innovation capability over this period could be identified.
The workshop commenced with an overview of the concept of innovation capability maturity. A brief period of discussion on the basic concepts then followed. Thereafter, the questionnaires were completed, initially in an interactive manner, but later on an individual basis. Participants were, however, free to ask questions. On several occasions, a group discussion on one of the questions would ensue. Once the questionnaires had been completed, further discussion was held. These discussions are presented in Section 4.6.2.3.
4.6.2.2
Maturity evaluation and questionnaire
As mentioned, the maturity evaluation (from now on referred to as an appraisal) was based on a workshop- type exercise and a questionnaire that was used as the basis for establishing the innovation capability maturity of the organisation. The questionnaire was constructed directly from the ICMM v1 with the questions being reworded Requirement Practices (see Figure 19 and Appendix B).
The intention was to determine whether the organisation performed a particular practice by simply asking whether it was the case. Provision was made for instances where a participant may have been unsure of practice fulfilment, or where a participant believed the question to be irrelevant to the organisation. The options available to the participants were:
YES – that which is described in the question is almost always fulfilled by the organisation and done so on a continuous basis.
UNSURE – the participant is uncertain of whether that which is described in the question is fulfilled or not.
IRRELEVANT – it is the participant‟s opinion that the question does not apply to the organisation.