The PaCS Core Innovation Process presents a process model for innovation in the PaCS space. In order for organizations to know if they are ready to start implementing such a model, or in order for organizations to assess how mature they are in the implementation of this or similar models, the concept of “Process Maturity” can be used. The following sections introduce this concept, and provide an overview of existing generic and innovation-specific process maturity models.


PROCESS MATURITY

A Business Process Maturity Model definition is provided in (Amy Van Looy, 2011).


A model to assess and/or to guide best practice improvements in organizational maturity and process capability, expressed in lifecycle levels, by taking into account an evolutionary roadmap regarding:

  1.  Process modeling,
  2.  Process deployment,
  3.  Process optimization,
  4.  Process management,
  5.  the organization culture and/or
  6.  the organizational structure

From this definition, we can take away that a Business Process Maturity Model is used for both establishing what the current maturity level is (assess) and to suggest ways to move to a higher maturity level (guide). The maturity level itself is an aggregate of six different capability levels (modelling, deployment, …).


GENERIC PROCESS MATURITY MODELS


In literature, many Business Process Maturity levels have been defined (Amy Van Looy, 2011). As an example we provide an overview of the levels available in the Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM) model (Object Management Group, 2008). This model defines the following maturity levels:

  • Level 1: Initial — wherein business processes are performed in inconsistent sometimes ad hoc ways with results that are difficult to predict.
  • Level 2: Managed — wherein management stabilizes the work within local work units to ensure that it can be performed in a repeatable way that satisfies the workgroup’s primary commitments. However, work units performing similar tasks may use different procedures.
  • Level 3: Standardized — wherein common, standard processes are synthesized from best practices identified in the work groups and tailoring guidelines are provided for supporting different business needs. Standard processes provide an economy of scale and a foundation for learning from common measures and experience.
  • Level 4: Predictable — wherein the capabilities enabled by standard processes are exploited and provided back into the work units. Process performance is managed statistically throughout the workflow to understand and control variation so that process outcomes can be predicted from intermediate states.
  • Level 5: Innovating — wherein both proactive and opportunistic improvement actions seek innovations that can close gaps between the organization’s current capability and the capability required to achieve its business objectives.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the various maturity levels, and their objectives and benefits.

busprocmaturity

 

Figure 1: the business process maturity model levels (Curtis, 2004)

Figure 2 provides an overview of the various levels and how to level up from one level to the next.

bpmm

Figure 2: the BPMM maturity levels transitions (Curtis, 2004)

A different maturity model is described by (Hammer, 2007). As with the BPMM, the Process and Enterprise Maturity Model (PEMM)  focusses on various dimensions that must be taken into account when optimizing enterprises:
“Contrary to widespread assumptions, designing new business processes involves more than rearranging work flows—who does what tasks, in what locations, and in what sequence. To make new processes work, companies must redefine jobs more broadly, increase training to support those jobs and enable decision making by frontline personnel, and redirect reward systems to focus on processes as well as outcomes. As if that weren’t enough, enterprises also have to reshape organizational cultures to emphasize teamwork, personal accountability, and the customer’s importance; redefine roles and responsibilities so that managers oversee processes instead of activities and develop people rather than supervise them; and realign information systems so they help cross functional processes work smoothly rather than simply support departments.” (Hammer, 2007).

In PEMM, two different sets of dimensions are defined – the Process Enablers and the Enterprise Capabilities. These are the Process Enablers:
Design: this relates to the specification of the how to process is to be executed.
Performers: this relates to the people performing the work.
Owner: this relates to the executive responsible for the process.
Infrastructure: this relates to the IT and other infrastructure supporting the process.
Metrics: this relates to measuring the process performance.

These process enablers can be evaluated for each process defined in an organization, for instance the “Innovation” process. There are four levels of maturity for each of the enablers, going from P1 to P4. Each maturity level builds on the previous one. A process is said to be a level N if all enablers for that process are at least at level N. So, four of the five enablers are at level P3, but a fifth one is at level P1, the overall process is still said to be at level P1.
These are the Enterprise Capabilities:
Leadership: this relates to top management support for process based approaches.
Culture: this relates to certain values necessary for process based work, such as customer focus and teamwork.
Expertise: this relates to skills in process design and implementation.
Governance: this relates to those mechanisms required to manage the transformation to a process based way of working or improvements in the process based way of working.

The enterprise capabilities relate to the readiness of the enterprise for designing and sustaining high performing processes. As with the process capabilities there are also four maturity levels for each enterprise capability. Similarly, an organization is only said to be at level N if all the enterprise capabilities were evaluated to be on level N. The author advises to investigate the enterprise capabilities before investigating the process enablers. For instance, an enterprise has to be at level E2 before it can sustain process performance on level P2.
The goal of the author with PEMM is to give managers and process consultants a framework to “avoid stumbling in the dark”. Using PEMM, they can score the organisation on the various dimensions to see where improvements can be made and in what areas the organization needs to focus. Using green, yellow and red indicators, the organization can easily map their conformance to the various maturity levels for the different dimensions.
Important to note regarding BPMM and PEMM is that these are generic framework, that can be applied to any process, regardless of the content of the design of that process.
A full overview of the framework, including the actual framework templates containing the statements that allow an organization to evaluate their conformance to the various levels can be found in (Hammer, 2007).

SPECIFIC INNOVATION PROCESS MATURITY MODELS AND APPROACHES
The BPMM and the PEMM are generic approaches that can be applied to any type of processes. In the past two decade, several innovation specific maturity models have been defined.
In (Jackie Fenn, 2011), the authors introduce the innovation maturity model as presented by Gartner. In their innovation model, the authors define six maturity dimensions. The maturity level of all these dimensions together determines the innovation maturity of the organisation. These dimensions are:

  • Strategy and intent
  • Process and practices
  • Culture and people
  • Organization and infrastructure
  • Partnerships and open innovation
  • Innovating how we innovate

Gartner further identifies five maturity levels for the innovation process:

  • Reactive innovation management
  • Active innovation management
  • Defined innovation management
  • Performing innovation management
  • Pervasive innovation management

Other innovation maturity models can be found in (Tobias Müller-Prothmann, 2011), (Spruijt, 2011), (Sun Rui, 2007), (Mackinnon, 2007), (Nauyalis) and (Berg, 2013).

RELATED CONCEPTS
Quantifying, evaluating and benchmarking innovation competence and practice is an integral, yet complex issue given the multifaceted processes that influence the organization’s innovation capability and performance and maturity levels. Derived from a synthesis of the studies (Adams, et al., 2006) identifies seven categories of innovation management measurement (illustrated in Table 1): inputs, knowledge management, strategy, organization and culture, portfolio and commercialization.


Table 1 Innovation Measurement Categories

Category Measurement Areas Measurement Methods

Inputs

R&D metrics R&D intensity -  Ratios between expenditure or numbers employed in R&D roles and some expression of output
Expenditure Quantitative -  total expenditure, expenditure expressed as a proportion of sales or revenues, and expenditure by item (organizational department, patent, innovation or scientist

People

number of people committed to the innovation task - Subdivided into skillsets/demographics/ units
Propensity to innovate - Kirton (1976) ‘adaptor–innovator’ continuum; Bruce (1994) innovative behaviour measure; Patterson (2003) Innovation Potential Indicator
Facilities/ Physical resources from buildings to computer equipment - Physical resources can be counted or measured in dollar terms
Use of systems and tools Creativity tools;  Quality/management tools

Knowledge Management

Idea Generation

count the number of ideas generated

in a period; the Range of tools and techniques

Imported tangible knowledge Patents
Tacit knowledge

Causal mapping,  story-telling and the use of metaphor

Intangible knowledge assets

Difference between market value and net

book value

Information flows into and within the firm

Linkage measures with external organizations and sources; measures of internal information gathering processes; measures of customer

information contacts

Information gathering project reviews and the use of technical reports
Innovation Strategy Strategic management quantitative interpretations of new product and market activity
Strategic orientation whether the organization has an innovation strategy; commitment to differentiated funding
Management and leadership

Qualitative questions, signs of commitment

in annual reports

Organizational Culture and Structure

Innovation Management Functional differentiation, specialization and integration metrics
Situational and psychological factors Enabling factors, flexibility measures, The Team Climate Inventory (TCI); the KEYS instrument for assessing the work environment for creativity
Autonomy Degree of personnel freedom, decision making
Morale and motivation Reward, trust and job satisfaction
Vision Kirton’s adopter–innovator inventory; team climate inventory
Risk Failure tolerance, learning, gambling,
Portfolio Management Selecting innovation projects Return on investment, Scoring models; Economic and benefit models

Project Management

Project efficiency, tools, Comparisons between budget and actual (project costs, project duration, revenue fore- casting); stage-gate process, Phased Development, Product and Cycle-time Excellence and Total Design
Communications and collaboration Committees, numbers of meetings and contacts, percentage of projects in co-operation with third parties
Commercialisation Innovations to market Marketing, sales, distribution and joint ventures, measures of launch proficiency (salesforce, distributional and promotional support)

Source: developed from (Adams, et al., 2006)

In terms of measurement, (Tidd, 2001) identifies two main approaches to measuring innovation at the firm level; firstly, financial indicators such as R&D expenditures, patents and innovation launch statistics and secondly, survey based instruments to uncover personnel and processes. Equally, innovation audits can support innovators and decisions makers to improve their product innovation process. Several authors describe the related concept of innovation audits, which can support innovators and decisions makers to improve their product innovation process. (Chiesa, Coughlan, & Voss, 1996), (Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt, Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change, 2005), (Hallgren, 2009).


Rush et al. (2007) developed a technological innovation capability audit tool to objectively assess various categories surrounding innovation capability (innovation awareness, trigger searching, core competencies, technology strategy, technical assessment and exploration, acquisition and implementation, learning and external exploitation.


Replicating the self-audit diagnostic tool methodology, Radnor and Noke (2002) developed the Innovation Compass diagnostic tool to assess and identify innovation performance against desired benchmark ideals. The Compass audit enables organisations to identify their performance score against contextual, structure, teams and leadership and output themes. In turn, these results can be used to develop an action plan for improving innovation performance activity. In a similar vein, Chiesa et al. (1996) innovation audit model explores organizational innovation processes (new concept generation, new product development, process redefinition, technology acquisition), plus other “support” activities (market focus, leadership and culture, resource allocation, organizational systems). Hallgren (2009) advances the audit tool concept to support learning in high involvement innovation based on participation and learning resulting in a group of motivated employees who, themselves, select and drive the improvement projects.
The use of innovation scorecards provides an overall assessment of the practices adopted with respect to best practices (benchmarking) and enables decision makers to identify whether or not the required managerial processes and practices are in place (Cormican & O'Sullivan, Proceedings of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Logistics and Production Management Conference, 2000). Cormican and O’Sullivan’s product innovation management (PIM) scorecard represents a self-assessment audit that consists of 50 statements or traits spanning Strategy & Leadership, Culture & Climate, Planning & Selection, Structure & Performance, Communication & Collaboration (see Table 2) . The scorecard approach enables managers and decision makers to acquire an overview of their strengths (to be exploited) and weaknesses (to be improved) with regard to product innovation management best practices in each category.


Table 2 PIM Scorecard

Please circle the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements

where 1 represents strongly agree and 5 represents strongly disagree

 


STATEMENT
SCORE

 

Strategy and Leadership

  1. The product strategic plan is effective and used
  2. Product strategy is clearly defined and communicated to all employees
  3. The product innovation programme has a long term thrust and focus
  4. Product strategy is used to align priorities with other functions
  5. Strategies are flexible enough to respond to changes in the environment
  6. Senior management are accountable for new product results
  7. Leaders visibly drive innovation
  8. Leaders adopt a consensus and shared approach to decision making
  9. Leaders adopt a participative decision making style
  10. Senior management actively encourages the submission of new product ideas

Culture and Climate

  1. The organisation permits the emergence of intrapreneurs or product champions
  2. The organisation provides support in terms of autonomy, time and rewards
  3. Money is made available for internal projects
  4. Adequate resources are available and committed to achieve project goals
  5. All employees participate in generating ideas
  6. Senior management is committed to risk taking in product innovation
  7. Failures and mistakes are tolerated and not punished
  8. Knowledge sharing is encouraged and rewarded
  9. All operations are driven by customer needs
  10. There is a formal idea generation process in place

Planning and Selection

  1. An effective product innovation process is consistently implemented
  2. A formal process is used to determine and update project priorities
  3. Concepts are selected using predefined, multiple and explicit criteria
  4. Pre-development market and feasibility studies are rigorously undertaken
  5. Projects are terminated if and when necessary
  6. Project proposals are tested for alignment with organisational goals
  7. The project and the spending breakdown mirrors the organisations goals and measures
  8. There is a good balance of projects which maximises the value of the portfolio
  9. The product portfolio is matched to the firm's competencies and capabilities
  10. The voice of the customer is built into all product innovations

Structure and Performance

  1. Projects are developed using effective cross functional teams
  2. Project teams are organic, flexible and agile
  3. All team operations are driven by customer needs
  4. Team leaders are involved in setting the product performance objectives
  5. All team members are mutually accountable
  6. Team members are empowered to make decisions
  7. Virtual team members are equipped with effective ICT tools
  8. Team members rewards are equitable
  9. Performance indicators are aligned with the organisations goals
  10. Performance indicators encourage desired behaviour

Communication and Collaboration

  1. Gatekeepers are in place to continuously span the external environment
  2. Customers and suppliers are involved in the product innovation process
  3. Alliances are often formed with other organisations for mutual benefit
  4. Communications among team members is efficient and effective
  5. Communications between project teams is efficient and effective
  6. Information on ideas generated, problems raised and project status are accessible
  7. User needs analysis are undertaken and communicated to all
  8. Product strategy and performance measures are clearly communicated to all 
  9. Individual skills are effectively leveraged within and between project teams
  10. Virtual team members seamlessly communicate with each other

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

 

 

Source: (Cormican & O'Sullivan, 2004)


AVAILABLE TEMPLATES

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY


Adams, R., Bessant, J. & Phelps, R., 2006. Innovation Management Measurement: A Review.. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), pp. 21-47.
Amy Van Looy, M. D. (2011). Defining Business Process Maturity, a journey towards excellence. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 22(11), 1119-1137.
Berg, R. (2013). The strategic and capability building steps for. Berg Consulting Group.
Chiesa, V., Coughlan, P., & Voss, C. (1996). Development of a technical innovation audit. Journal of product innovation mangement(13), 105-136.
Cormican, K., & O'Sullivan, D. (2000). Proceedings of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Logistics and Production Management Conference. Developing a Self Assessment Audit to Support Product Innovation Management.
Curtis, B. (2004). Overview of the Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM). Teraquest.
Hallgren, E. W. (2009). How to use an innovation audit as a learning tool: a case study of enhancing high-involvement innovation. Creativity and innovation management, 18(1), 48-58.
Hammer, M. (2007, April). The Process Audit. Harvard Business Review, 85(4).
Jackie Fenn, K. H. (2011, 04 06). A Maturity Model for Innovation Management. Opgeroepen op 10 28, 2014, van Gartner.com: https://www.gartner.com/doc/1621015/maturity-model-innovation-management
Mackinnon, L. A. (2007, 6 2). Innovation Maturity Models. Opgeroepen op 10 28, 2014, van Think Differently!: http://www.think-differently.org/2007/06/innovation-maturity-models/
Nauyalis, C. (sd). The Innovation Management Maturity Model: How Do You Stack Up? Opgeroepen op 10 28, 2014, van innovationmanagement.se: http://www.innovationmanagement.se/2013/10/28/the-innovation-management-maturity-model-how-do-you-stack-up/
Object Management Group. (2008). Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM). Object Management Group, Inc.
Rush, H., Bessant, J., & Hobday, M. (2007). Assessing the technological capabilities of firms: developing a policy tool. R&D Management, 37(3), 221-236.
Spruijt, J. (2011). A new model for innovation: Fast Track Innovation. Opgeroepen op 10 27, 2014, van http://www.openinnovation.eu/: http://www.openinnovation.eu/23-02-2012/a-new-model-for-innovation-fast-track-innovation/
Sun Rui, S. J. (2007). Research on Capability Maturity Model for Organizational: Innovation Management: Focus on Intellectual Capital. Proceedings of International Conference on Enterprise and Management Innovation.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. John Wiley & Sons.
Tobias Müller-Prothmann, A. S. (2011). I²MM – Integrated Innovation Maturity Model for Lean Assessment of Innovation Capability. XXII ISPIM Conference 2011: Sustainability in Innovation.

 

Getting Started

Which type of company are you? Choose one of the options below and get a head-start.

Framework Overview

Navigate through the different parts of the Framework

leeg