Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy

Vol.6 (2018) no.1, pp.67-85; DOI 10.25019/MDKE/6.1.04

ISSN 2392-8042 (online) © Faculty of Management (SNSPA)

Multi-Dimensional View of Innovation Performance

from Knowledge Dynamics to Maturity Matrix
Lamyaa EL BASSITI
ENSIAS, Mohammed V University in Rabat
Av. Mohammed Ben Abdallah Regragui, Madinat Al Irfane, BP 713,
Agdal, Rabat, MA
elbassitilamyaa@gmail.com

Abstract. Innovation Knowledge Dynamics can be defined as a set of interacting

activities, stages, and concepts, in order to generate a methodology to manage the
essential innovation emergence, design and adoption in digital format throughout the
innovation lifecycle. It aims to identify the innovation domain’s knowledge structures,
internal dynamics, and implementation requirements. Based on the analysis of the
shifts global mindset manifest, and following today’s transition towards a new era of
flexible forms of managing and organizing, we suggest a tri-axial understanding of the
innovation field. Upon this understanding, we developed a tri-axial model for
innovation performance measurement, which led us to design a Maturity Matrix that
we put into practice through an Assessment Workflow and a Sample Scoring System.
This paper identifies three complementary components specifically developed to enable
such assessment. First, Innovation Granularity Scales enabling highly targeted yet
flexible performance analysis, ranging from knowledge assessment to high level
progressions and improvements; Second, Innovation Capability Stages referring to the
minimum capabilities required by transformational milestones along the innovation
continuum; Third, Innovation Maturity Levels, representing the quality, predictability
and performance within the innovation stages. This paper explores these
complementary components and presents them as a systematic model underlying a
specified Innovation Maturity Matrix.

Keywords: innovation performance; innovation measurement; knowledge dynamics;

maturity matrix; innovation capability stages; innovation granularity scales;
innovation maturity levels; innovation assessment workflow.

Introduction

Majchrzak, Neece, and Cooper (2001) have noted that “innovation, by definition,
means the use of knowledge in unknown future contexts and thus simple searches of
any repository are unlikely to yield innovative outcomes”. Malhotra (2002) also has
questioned the feasibility of storing large quantities of knowledge for future reuse,
and observed that the underlying assumptions a system must make when
determining what should be retrieved cannot be “pre-programmed to detect an
unpredictable future”. So, one concern is that it is often impossible to predict how
current knowledge will be used by future innovators. On the other hand, knowledge
68 | Lamyaa EL BASSITI
Multi-Dimensional View of Innovation Performance from Knowledge Dynamics to Maturity
Matrix

is dynamic and evolves over time, which leads to the increase of the available
knowledge. Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003) have argued that good ideas evolve from
people who have access to relevant knowledge. However, the knowledge per se is
not enough to ensure the innovation success. According to several surveys, such the
annual innovation survey from The Boston Consulting Group, an increasing number
of organizations spend more and more on innovation, but many of these initiatives
don’t generate satisfactory impact. This problem does not lie in a lack of ideas, but
more in a successful management of the innovation process from an idea to a useful
product. Booz Allen Hamilton found that a common factor between successful
innovators is “a rigorous process for managing innovation, including a disciplined,
stage-by-stage approval process combined with regular measurement of every
critical factor, ranging from time and money spent to the success of new products in
the market” (Du Preez & Louw, 2008).

Commonly, the success of idea generation depends on the quality of the best
opportunity selected (Girotra et al., 2010), because organizational resources are,
usually, limited and cannot be wasted in the development of unpromising ideas.
While best idea identification is undoubtedly important, it is only one aspect of an
organization’s innovativeness and it is the measurement of the overall innovation
aspects as well as the expected effects of the innovation diffusion that is critical for
competitiveness. However, the Boston Consulting Group report (Andrew et al., 2009)
found that companies focus only on the measurement of innovation inputs and they
consider themselves far less adept at tracking innovation inputs and the quality of
the process in-between. Therefore, the multidimensional perspective of innovation
is yet inadequately represented in measurement terms and this is a challenging
problem that requires being tackled.

As well, Morris (2011) argues that measuring innovation performance presents

problems for the process itself, because innovation involves a venture into the
unknown, and trying to pin these unknowns down too fast may make them harder to
recognize and realize. The measurement can also undermine the spirit of creativity,
learning, discovery, and intelligent risk-taking that the innovation process requires
if the wrong things are measured at the wrong time using the wrong mechanism. In
addition, empirical studies have found that many organizations tend to focus only on
the measurement of innovation inputs and outputs in terms of spending, speed to
market and numbers of new products, and ignore the processes in-between (Adams,
Bessant, & Phelps, 2006). It is therefore critical to create a measurement model
providing a useful basis for managers to monitor and gauge innovation performance,
detect faults and identify repairs, in order to help the organization, build its capacity
to innovate systemically.

The remainder of this paper unfolds as follows. In the next section, to bring a better
understanding of the topic, we start from the knowledge dynamics characterizing
innovation then we highlight the need to measure the performance of this latter
(Section 2). Next, we review and discuss the relevant literature in Section 3, and we
present the adopted research design and the evaluation approach in Section 4. We
then develop a tri-axial model for innovation performance measurement in Section
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 69
Vol.6 (2018) no.1, pp.67-85; www.managementdynamics.ro

5, while section 6 introduces the Innovation Maturity Matrix, a performance

measurement and improvement tool which identifies the correlation between
Innovation Capability Stage, Granularity Scale, and Maturity Level. Finally, Section 7
introduces a use case of the Innovation Maturity Matrix, before we conclude by
summarizing topics for further research.

Knowledge dynamics and innovation measurement

Innovation and knowledge are intrinsically linked. Drucker (1995) has mentioned
that “if we apply knowledge to tasks that are new and different, we call it innovation”,
and most commentators agree that innovation is a knowledge intensive process that
demands the straightforward application of knowledge (Choo, 1998). Thus, to
maintain competitive advantage, modern organizations have to be open to new kinds
of knowledge resources and to access external people. Arundel and Bordoy (2002)
have noted that “modern innovation theories stress the diffusion of knowledge
among many different actors”. This means that innovation is a social process that
happens when people interact with others and their knowledge is exposed,
assimilated, shared and finally transformed to produce new knowledge. However,
knowledge largely resides in people’s heads thus, relevant knowledge cannot be
achieved except through identifying those people because it is highly tacit and little
codified in a structured way. Furthermore, the dyad used to represent the individual,
as well as organizational knowledge, has shifted in the last years from the tacit-
explicit dyad to new and wider concepts like cognitive, emotional and spiritual
knowledge forms (Bratianu, 2016). Thus, organizations have to identify, reduce or
remove barriers and create an environment in which knowledge sharing, learning,
and reusing are valued and encouraged.

Over time a lot of attention has been granted to the creation and protection of
organizational knowledge, while little attention has been granted to the dynamics of
transforming knowledge from one form into another. Since innovation is tightly
related to knowledge dynamics, clearer specification and measurement of the key
factors underpinning innovation should assist managers in improving organizational
innovativeness and overall organizational performance. Simons (1990) emphasized
that measurement can be used as a strategic tool to motivate and inspire new
behaviors, to have the potential to support team autonomy, as well as stimulating
communities for the generation and implementation of creative ideas. Despite its
potential to facilitate management, measurement is considered as a challenging area
in practice and measuring innovation is particularly challenging as innovation is
multidimensional, complex and unpredictable (McCarthy et al., 2006). As well, the
measurement of its underlying knowledge dynamics is still emerging and misses
workable method and metrics. While many argue that too much measurement will
stifle the spirit of innovation, accurate measurement is still considered as pivotal for
every business success because assessing the progress and evaluating the impact
allow the organization to change its direction before mistakes become expensive or
great opportunities are missed.
70 | Lamyaa EL BASSITI
Multi-Dimensional View of Innovation Performance from Knowledge Dynamics to Maturity
Matrix

Reviewing existing research literature shows that only a small part of generated
ideas reaches an advanced stage in the innovation stage or end with success.
According to Kerka, Kriegesmann, and Schwering (2009), Liberatore and Stylianou
(1995), roughly 6% of all official ideas and 14% of the promising ideas attaining the
implementation stage become a commercial success. Hence, the continuous
measurement of performance is important for effective management as it provides
the foundation through the persistent investigation of ideas throughout the
innovation process. Likewise, the findings of Kerka, Kriegesmann, and Schwering
(2009) have shown a lack of research on this subject and argued that the missing of
appropriate evaluation mechanism is the most challenging problem. This gap is
especially applied to the measurement activity at the early stages of the innovation
process, as many evaluation mechanisms are simply not up to deal with the special
characteristics of the front end of innovation. In addition, the existing research works
addressing the issue of developing metrics for innovation measurement provide
metrics, even though somewhat useful, offer a limited view of an organization’s
innovativeness and don’t measure its overall innovation capability (Muller,
Välikangas, & Merlyn, 2005) and impact.

Furthermore, it seems that it is not only the commitment to new innovation

measurement approaches that is missing, but the real challenge is to find the relevant
metrics, suitable mechanism and the discipline making measurement a priority in
innovation management as part of a systematic process. As in the past, competitive
advantage rested on factors such as quality, productivity or access to low-cost
resources, whereas today these factors tend to become obsolete. Accordingly, and in
order to carry out a successful innovation journey, organizations must specify how
innovation performance is to be measured. Two issues need then to be addressed for
this purpose: (1) “What are the key components underlying a successful measurement
of the innovation performance?” (2) “How can the innovation performance be
measured?” This paper contributes to the innovation performance theory and
practice by providing a set of pillars, we suppose, as fundamental for a generic
framework for innovation performance measurement and improvement, especially
at the front end of innovation.

Literature review

In an attempt to extend the innovation performance theory and practice beyond a

focus on the front end of innovation, this section reviews the literature as it relates
to the performance measurement in the context of a conceptual framework. We bring
together disparate suggestions made in various parts of the literature and
summarize common insights. We also identify gaps in performance theory and
practice and point out the way toward the development of a comprehensive model.

More recently there has been significant progress in delineating the multiplicity of
resources required for innovation, and the innovation actors’ dependence on the
global competitive market forces, as well as their immediate socio-economic and
institutional environment (Milbergs & Vonortas, 2004). In fact, for a long time,
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 71
Vol.6 (2018) no.1, pp.67-85; www.managementdynamics.ro

innovation performance measurement tended to be focused on products and their

related production systems. Whereas, the key dimensions of a successful
measurement framework should cover innovation context (e.g. strategy and
culture), innovation lifecycle, innovation outcomes and the enabling factors such as
innovation actors and knowledge management. Each dimension could be measured
by a set of metrics that directly address the main indicators for that dimension. Such
a multidimensional view will help decision makers to understand the dynamics of
innovation, to highlight policy implications and to better inform those who impact
the innovation process. As such, organizations should strongly engage their
knowledge workers in the innovation effort to develop innovation metrics that look
beyond innovation inputs, outcomes, and innovation processes. An up to date view
requires also more attention to the innovation requirements and goals, customer
value creation, and global markets; and to related determinants such as knowledge
process flows, inter-organization linkages, contextual constraints and the
infrastructure required for innovation.

On the other hand, choosing the right metrics is obviously critical to the innovation
success, but the road to suitable metrics is fraught with pitfalls. A good metric should
be precise, tied to overall effectiveness and designed to encourage extra-normal
effort (Hauser & Katz, 1998). Actually, many metrics that seem right and easy to be
used have subtle, counter-productive consequences; whereas metrics focusing on
decisions and actions which are critical to organizational innovativeness are more
difficult to measure (Minonne & Turner, 2012). For instance, the “R&D Effectiveness
Index” (EI) proposed by McGrath and Romeri (1994). This index, roughly equal to
the percent of profit obtained from new products divided by the percent of revenue
spent on R&D, attempts to measure R&D effectiveness based on the net revenue that
R&D contributes to the organization. But R&D, as a special kind of innovation, is one
of the riskiest and long-term investments that an organization can make. So, if
managers perceive that they are rewarded based on EI, then they will prefer projects
that are less risky and more short-term oriented. Furthermore, a significant fraction
of R&D projects can be falsely rejected or falsely selected if EI is the only metric.
Otherwise, Schulze et al. (2012) performed a study on 331 Australian corporations,
to explore what practices organizations currently employ in their efforts to evaluate
incoming ideas and, specifically, what role information systems play in idea
assessment. This study showed that almost 40% of the participating organizations
do not have a regular, structured framework for idea assessment, and assess fewer
ideas less frequently, which lead to lower effectiveness. Alarmingly, almost 20% of
organizations do not assess the ideas they collect at all. In addition, they stated that
one-third of their survey respondents report not having fixed measurement criteria,
while only a third use one criterion (e.g. difficulty, feasibility, originality).

On corollary, because these research works do not present a comprehensive model

that can be applied to the innovation dynamics, stages, actors and outcomes; we
suggest the need for a synthetic and integrative framework to measure the overall
innovation performance. Accordingly, and in order to increase the reliability,
adoptability, and usability for different actors involved in the innovation journey, we
purposefully chose a set of guiding principle to measure the specifics of the
innovation performance: (1) Accuracy: Clear, well-defined and able to measure
72 | Lamyaa EL BASSITI
Multi-Dimensional View of Innovation Performance from Knowledge Dynamics to Maturity
Matrix

performance at high levels of precision. (2) Usability: Intuitive and easily used to
assess the innovation performance across the innovation’s lifecycle stages. (3)
Consistency: Yield the same results when conducted by different assessors. (4)
Flexibility: Can be performed across different stages and context scales. (5)
Informativity: Provide feedback and guidance for next steps in the lifecycle (6)
Specificity: Serve the specific requirements of the innovation activity. Based on these
guiding principles, the next sections introduce and describe the development of a set
of complementary knowledge components that aim to underpin the measurement of
innovation performance and then its improvement. These components were
aggregated into a tri-axial model that targets the contextual integration of innovation
dynamics, actors and outcomes; which allow a fast and intuitive assessment of
activities particularly on the early stages of innovation, to explore the extent to which
organizations are nominally innovative or whether or not innovation is embedded
throughout them, and to identify areas for improvement.

Research design

This work provides a theoretical basis for a generic innovation performance

measurement framework based on a multidimensional approach. The literature
review and the study of some business use cases was an important foundation of this
paper, focusing on three main areas: Knowledge Dynamics, Innovation Measurement
Mechanism, and Capability Maturity Models. The first area was searched in order to
understand the state-of-art, in particular at the front end of innovation, and to
identify issues concerning how innovation measurement is related to knowledge
dynamics. The search of the second area was directed by the aim to find relevant
mechanisms that can help innovation actors to make informed decisions based on a
complete view of the organization’s innovation capability. The third area was
searched in view of understanding the capability maturity levels and requirements.

Since this research work does not seek to prove, disprove or compare phenomena
but rather to discover the underlying structures of a nascent domain of knowledge,
this study adopted a mixed research perspective combining behavioral and design
research patterns, an interpretive and critical paradigm, a mixture of research
strategies focusing on retroduction, and an exploratory mixed data collection
methodology. The empirical examination of the conceptual constructs developed in
this study will be published in upcoming research works.

Tri-axial model of innovation performance measurement

Since innovation is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon (Wolfe, 1994)

modern organizations can overcome the innovation measurement gap by defining a
synthesized framework that represents this diversity using a multidimensional
approach. In other words, only the combination of all aspects that can provide a
meaningful understanding of the cause-effect relationships underlying innovation
activities, since the real value of the outputs is the result of more than just the sum of
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 73
Vol.6 (2018) no.1, pp.67-85; www.managementdynamics.ro

the inputs (resources invested). Accordingly, other measures reflecting the dynamics
and processes characterizing the innovation activities should be also integrated.
Such multidimensional approach to measurement has been found in other areas of
management to be an improvement on simple one-dimensional measures and to be
able to capture both short- and long-term aspects of value creation in the
organization (Adams, Bessant, & Phelps, 2006).

We define Innovation as an emergent process characterized by highly unpredictable

potential actors, dynamic and not always known context, and ill-structured and
distributed knowledge objects. Knowledge dynamics has been defined as the
continuous interaction and transformation of knowledge from one form into another
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Bratianu, 2016). Accordingly, we define Innovation
Knowledge Dynamics as a set of interacting activities, stages, and concepts, in order
to generate a methodology to manage the essential innovation emergence, design
and adoption in digital format throughout the innovation lifecycle. Based on these
definitions, we propose a tri-axial conceptualization of innovation performance (see
Figure 1). This model distinguishes three dimensions we consider as primary for a
holistic and systematic approach to innovation performance measurement and
improvement:

Figure 1. Innovation Performance Measurement Model

1. Innovation Capability Stages: representing a process perspective that covers the

minimum capabilities required by the different stages of the innovation lifecycle. It
aims to balance predictive and historic actions with the required dynamics of
knowledge flow.
74 | Lamyaa EL BASSITI
Multi-Dimensional View of Innovation Performance from Knowledge Dynamics to Maturity
Matrix

2. Innovation Granularity Scales: enabling a granular view of innovation that

emphasizes the innovation actors, knowledge and context as three cornerstones of
any successful innovation.
3. Innovation Maturity Levels: providing a maturity perspective that focuses on the
ability to show improvement across the entire spectrum of the innovation journey.
It aims to help organizations assessing their innovation capabilities, develop a
roadmap to prioritize initiatives and then sequence them.

Innovation capability stages

Innovation as a complex process is not easily reduced to measurable metrics. So, it is

quite obvious that measuring the innovation success of the front end of innovation
requires a different set of metrics than those required for the back end. The reason
is whereas the focus of early stages of innovation lies primarily on evaluating the
identified needs and trends, measuring the success at the late stages requires metrics
that map the potential performance of a practical use of innovation. Thus, in order to
be able to properly assess and measure the progress and success across the entire
continuum of innovation, and based on the GenID Lifecycle Model (see Figure 2), six
capability stages, referring to the key milestones over the innovation continuum,
have been identified. They aim to allow measuring the minimum availability of
required capabilities (e.g. policies, technologies and processes).

Figure 2. GenID Lifecycle Model (El Bassiti et al., 2017)

 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 75
Vol.6 (2018) no.1, pp.67-85; www.managementdynamics.ro

1. Generation Stage: refers to the minimum capabilities required for individual

and/or collective creation, refinement, and capturing of relevant ideas.
2. Networking Stage: refers to the minimum capabilities required to integrate the
identified idea into the strategic roadmap of the organization by cross-linking the
innovation actor’s competencies, the core-idea’s characteristics, and the contextual
variables.
3. Modeling Stage: refers to the minimum capabilities required to shape the
expectations behind the created idea and how its success will look like by
transforming the idea into a workable concept.
4. Validation Stage: refers to the minimum capabilities required for metrics
definition, assessment and decision making whether the idea will be implemented,
revised or stored for later use.
5. Implementation Stage: refers to the minimum capabilities required for the
successful adoption of the designed idea, which involves the specification of tasks to
be performed, the core competencies to be acquired and the expected outcomes to
be delivered.
6. Exploitation Stage: refers to the minimum capabilities required to ensure an
efficient and effective communication and widespread diffusion of the implemented
ideas across its potential market, and to measure the impact the large diffusion has
had.

Innovation granularity scales

In order to successfully implement a performance measurement system for their

innovation programs, organizations must adopt a granular view of innovation.
Because innovation is not only about knowledge and other factors as well matter, we
define Innovation Dynamics as the continuous interplay of relevant knowledge units,
actors’ competencies and contextual abilities; seeking the best matching that enables
creative, collaborative and wise emergence, design and adoption of ideas; with the
aim to create noteworthy wealth and make sustainable change. This view will allow
innovation actors to have a good chance to align innovation activities and decisions
with the contextual factors (e.g. long-term goals), the actors’ profiles (e.g. behaviors,
interests, areas of expertise), and the knowledge capabilities (e.g. required
competencies, resources, policies). Accordingly, and in accordance with the semantic
model of innovation (El Bassiti, 2017) we conceptualized as part of the GenID
Framework, three granularity scales have been distinguished as depicted in Figure 3
below:
76 | Lamyaa EL BASSITI
Multi-Dimensional View of Innovation Performance from Knowledge Dynamics to Maturity
Matrix

Figure 3. Innovation Granularity Scales

1. Knowledge Scale: refers to the different forms of knowledge resulting from the
innovation knowledge dynamics in order to deliver a noteworthy outcome.
2. Actor Scale: refers to different actors involved in the innovation process.
3. Context Scale: refers to the organizational abilities allowed to innovation actors
to perform innovation activities and deliver noteworthy outcomes.

Acting as an Innovation Scoping Filter, these Granularity Scales have been further
detailed to enable a more targeted approach to innovation assessment and
improvement. Table 1 below introduces more granular levels.

Table 1. Innovation Granularity Scales

Major
Minor Granularity Definition
Granularity
A set of knowledge unit that can be used, re-
1.1. Core-Idea used or referenced during the innovation
lifecycle.
A set of actions performed by an innovation
1.2. Behavior
1. Knowledge actor on a particular idea.
Scale A set of activities occurring within a given
1.3. Process context as a result of transforming inputs into
outputs in a defined order.
A set of qualitative or quantitative descriptions
1.4. Class
of an idea, behavior or process.
A person who participates in the emergence,
design or adoption of an idea with the aim to
2.1. Individual
contribute to private as well as global wealth
creation
2. Actor Scale A complex assemblage of individuals and their
2.2. Organization interactions (e.g. responsibilities, objectives,
tasks, resources).
A purposeful cluster of individuals or
2.3. Community
organizations temporarily bound together
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 77
Vol.6 (2018) no.1, pp.67-85; www.managementdynamics.ro

through a unifying long-term mission, a

common goal or a shared activity.
A set of tangible and intangible assets
3.1. Resources supporting the accomplishment of innovation
activities.
Principles, rules, and moralities used to assist
policy makers and domain researchers to
3. Context 3.2. Policies analyze, develop and improve innovation
Scale practices and performance along the innovation
lifecycle.
Systematic knowledge practices and tools
granted to an innovation actor to continuously
3.3. Capabilities
transform knowledge and ideas into new
outputs for the benefit of the involved actors.

Innovation maturity levels

The term “Maturity” denotes the extent ability in performing a task or delivering an
outcome. A maturity model provides a systematic framework for carrying out
benchmarking and performance improvement. Thus, “Innovation Maturity” refers to
performance improvement milestones that innovation actors aspire to achieve. It
represents the degree of excellence throughout an innovation journey. Maturity
models are typically staged models providing a predefined roadmap for
improvement based on proven grouping and ordering (from “not able to do it”
through to “continuously improving”) of processes and associated relationships.
Each stage, called “maturity level”, has a set of process areas that indicate where
innovation actors should focus their improvement efforts. Each process area is
described in terms of the practices that contribute to satisfying its goals. The
practices describe the infrastructure and activities that contribute most to the
effective implementation and institutionalization of the process areas. Progress
occurs by satisfying the goals of all process areas in a particular maturity level.

Based on a deep analysis of maturity models used across different industries (El
Bassiti & Ajhoun, 2016), an innovation maturity model has been developed (see
Figure 4) to reflect the specifics of the innovation activity, its management
requirements, performance targets and knowledge dynamics. As a result, five
distinct levels have been identified:

Figure 4. Innovation Maturity Levels

a. Awareness Level: The innovation management (IM) practices are unstructured

and ill-defined. Process measures are not in place, process performance is
78 | Lamyaa EL BASSITI
Multi-Dimensional View of Innovation Performance from Knowledge Dynamics to Maturity
Matrix

unpredictable and targets, if defined, are often missed. IM costs are high both in
functional, financial and managerial terms.
b. Defined Level: The basic IM processes are defined but remain unclear, elementary
and very simple. Process performance is more predictable and targets are defined
but still missed more often than not. Overcoming the functional and managerial
difficulties still takes considerable effort due to turf concerns and competing goals.
IM costs remain high, frustration is still present and satisfaction, although better
defined, is still low.
c. Linked Level: At this breakthrough level, IM processes are implemented with
strategic intent and goals. Process performance becomes more predictable and
targets are often achieved. Continuous improvement efforts take shape and
emphasize root cause elimination and performance improvements. IM costs begin
decreasing and feelings of “community spirit” take the place of frustration.
Innovation actors are included in process improvement efforts and their satisfaction
begins to show marked improvement.
d. Managed Level: The innovation actors reach a wholeness perspective based on
wise judgment and intentional learning. IM measures and management systems are
deeply embedded in the organization. Advanced IM practices, such as creative
imagination, collective engagement, and collaborative forecasting, take shape.
Process performance becomes very predictable and targets are reliably achieved.
Process improvement goals are collectively set and achieved with confidence. IM
costs are dramatically reduced and satisfaction and community spirit become a
competitive advantage.
e. Sustained Level: Advanced IM practices that allow self-responsibility are in place.
Innovation actors with common processes, goals and broad authority take shape.
Trust, mutual dependency, and community spirit are the glue holding the different
actors together. A creative and collaborative culture is firmly in place. Process
performance and reliability of the sustained system are measured and joint
investments in improving the system are shared, as are the returns. This is the
beginning of a successful innovation networked journey.

In general, the progression from lower to higher levels of maturity across

developmental stages results in better control due to minimized variations between
performance targets and actual results; improved predictability and forecasting of
goals, cost and performance; greater effectiveness in reaching defined goals and
improved ability to set new more ambitious ones (McCormack, Ladeira, & de
Oliveira, 2008).

Innovation maturity matrix

The Innovation Maturity Matrix (InnoMM) is a comprehensive knowledge tool that

assists innovation actors in planning, achieving and assessing the innovation
performance milestones. It is intended to be used for the purpose of performance
measurement and improvement. Both its structure and content have benefited from
the innovation performance models presented in a previous publication (El Bassiti
& Ajhoun, 2016). To enable its wide applicability, the InnoMM has been developed to
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 79
Vol.6 (2018) no.1, pp.67-85; www.managementdynamics.ro

be accurate, usable, consistent, flexible, informative and specific (as detailed in the
previous section).

The InnoMM incorporates a set of concepts whose interactions can be represented

through many static and dynamic mediums. The InnoMM, in its expanded database-
driven form, includes all Granularity Scales, Capability Stages and Maturity Levels.
Table 2 below introduces a static representation of the InnoMM at a sample
Capability Stage.
Table 2. Innovation Maturity Matrix
1. Knowledge Scale 2. Actor Scale 3. Context Scale
Collaboration is Development and
Knowledge-related absent. There is no implementation of innovation
facilities are not external participation policies and capabilities get little
Awareness

present. There is a in developing or attention and few strategic

very poor effort to improving an idea. planning activities are conducted.
create, manage and Culture towards Innovation resources are not
share new knowledge. opening identified and the related strategy
There is a limited flow organizational is inexplicit. The organization
of information or boundaries for primarily focuses on operational
a.

feedback. knowledge sharing or planning and has no long-term

cooperation is missed. goals.
Only selected actors Innovation policies and
Actions are focused on
are involved in the capabilities are defined, refined,
past experiences and
innovation effort. The and communicated to a greater
b. Defined

initiatives. People are

importance of extent, but this tends to be
guided by the
involving external primarily informal and not go
recognition of patterns
parties in innovation beyond forecasting revenue and
and intuition occurring
is recognized. Culture costs. There is an inconsistent
at an individual level,
is risk tolerant and and reactionary application of
which is difficult to
leaders appoint “Idea strategic planning, which often
share with others.
Champions” leads to poor results.
Knowledge units are Collaboration tools Innovation policies are clear,
gathered, documented, and practices are accepted, and communicated.
and shared. IMSs are established and Innovation initiatives begin to
established to facilitate encouraged. become aligned with the overall
information flow and Knowledge sharing is organizational objectives.
allow inter-actors supported, inside However, there is a static focus on
Linked

communication to organizational current capabilities, rather than

occur. Insights and boundaries. alternatives and the staff is not
ideas are expressed to Involvement of yet engaged in strategy
others and a shared external actors in development. Processes are in
c.

understanding is being defining market place to manage resource

developed. There is a requirements, allocation and ensure sufficient
steadily growing designing, and availability of innovation
learning culture that modeling the delivery initiatives.
considers failure as an process is fostered.
opportunity to learn
80 | Lamyaa EL BASSITI
Multi-Dimensional View of Innovation Performance from Knowledge Dynamics to Maturity
Matrix

Innovation All relevant actors are Effective policies provide

management allowed to participate valuable guidance that drives the
processes and related in innovation organization’s focus and informs
systems are activities. There are decision making. There is formal
established. General continuous feedback engagement with employees in
idea campaigns are and cross- planning processes. There is
launched to harvest organizational dynamic rather than static
ideas, regardless of the cooperation. New resource allocation that creates
problem to be solved. collaborations and new capabilities or redefines the
Conversations are held alliances that spread market. Accurate measurement
d. Managed

to promote the risk and establish new and in-depth analysis are
collective mind and sources of revenue are occurring to assist in
mutual adjustments initiated. Both internal understanding the future
and negotiated actions and external actors organizational success factors.
are achieved. that may be interested
Innovation in or impacted by the
management is more innovation initiative
deeply integrated into are identified, and
processes to foster then involved
learning from both
successes and failures
for consistent
improvement.

There is widespread
involvement of
external actors.
Idea generation Innovation policies and
Relationships with
sessions are capabilities excellence are
highly skilled external
encouraged and embedded in the organization
parties (e.g.
sponsored. Individuals and continuously improved.
researchers,
readily teach and There are a shared understanding
consultants) are
Sustained

mentor each other. and regular communication of the

established,
There is regular, strategy and objectives with
maintained, and
transparent, and open employees. The strategic policies
exploited to improve
communication. are aligned to available
the innovation
Creativity, learning, capabilities and resource
processes and their
e.

and collaboration now allocation is in line with the

management.
occur at a high level. overall strategy. The strategic
Interdisciplinary and
Successful experiences planning framework is shaped by
complementary teams
become embedded in tomorrow’s concept of the
have been identified
the corporate memory. business.
and collaborative
practices are
institutionalized.

Innovation maturity matrix in use

Using the Innovation Maturity Matrix, the innovation performance measurement can
be conducted -in conformance with the guiding principles presented above
(Accuracy, Usability, Consistency, Flexibility, Informativity and Specificity) - at
multiple combinations of Capability Stage, Granularity Scale and Maturity Level. To
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 81
Vol.6 (2018) no.1, pp.67-85; www.managementdynamics.ro

manage all possible configurations, a simple assessment and reporting workflow has
been designed.

Innovation assessment workflow

Innovation Capability and Maturity assessments can be employed at either one of six
Capability Stages and at one of three Major Granularity Scales. To manage all these
assessments and reporting configurations, a simple assessment and reporting
workflow has been developed and depicted in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5. Innovation Capability and Maturity Assessment and Reporting

Workflow Diagram

Expanding on the designed workflow, a total of four workflow steps are needed to
conduct an innovation performance measurement. Starting with the innovation
granularity scales, the assessors first filter out a scale, conduct a series of
assessments within a particular stage and then generate a suitable measurement
report following an innovation maturity level:
Step 1: The assessor identifies the “Actual” and the “Target” Innovation Capability
Stages. For instance, if the assessed organization has an interlinking capability and
aims to start collaborating with an external actor then Innovation Stage 2 is the
“Actual Stage” while Innovation Stage 3 is the “Target Stage”. In this first workflow
step, the selection of an Innovation Capability Stage considerably reduces the
number of applicable competencies.
Step 2: After the number of applicable innovation competencies has been
significantly reduced by specifying an Innovation Capability Stage, the assessor
selects a Granularity Scale. For instance, a multinational organization with multiple
offices across different countries may decide to assess the Innovation Capability and
Maturity across the whole Organization (Community Scale) or within one specific
82 | Lamyaa EL BASSITI
Multi-Dimensional View of Innovation Performance from Knowledge Dynamics to Maturity
Matrix

Organizational Unit (Organization Scale). To a varying degree (refer to Table 1),

assessments can be conducted at every one of the 10 Minor Granularity Scales. This
ranges from “Ideas” (e.g. evaluating the relevance, aggregation, and reusability),
through “Organizations” (e.g. assessing collaboration dynamics and risk-mitigation
protocols) to “Contextual Capabilities” (e.g. evaluating availability and use of
technologies). Armed with this knowledge, the assessor isolates available
capabilities for focused capability assessment, and then establishes whether each of
the remaining applicable competencies has reached “Minimum Capability”.
Step 3: The assessor isolates the innovation competencies which reached the
minimum capability and then assesses their maturity. Using the same example from
workflow step 2, the assessor focuses his attention on the remaining applicable
competencies and then assesses them individually against the five Maturity Levels.
Step 4: In the last workflow step, assessment results are reported using a template
matching previously selected Granularity Scale. According to the targeted level of
assessment (e.g. Evaluation, Certification, Auditing), the generated report will vary
in formality, coverage, detail and the provision of a named or numerical score.

Sample scoring system

Measuring the Innovation Capability and Maturity requires an extensive, consistent

yet flexible scoring system. Below is an exploration of the simplest form of scoring to
be used for informal, self-administered assessments at a selected Capability Stage.
The scoring system follows a simple arithmetic model:
✓ There are ten individual scores relating to ten Granularity Scales.
✓ Maturity Levels are assigned a fixed number of maturity points: Level a (10
points), Level b (20 points), Level c (30 points), Level d (40 points) and Level e (50
points).
✓ The Maturity Score is the average total points subdivided by ten.

Table 3 below provides a hypothetical Maturity Score of an assessment conducted at

the Innovation Capability Stage 3.

Table 3. Innovation Evaluation Score

a. b. c. d. e.
Innovation Maturity Matrix
10 20 30 40 50
Assessment at Capability Stage 3
Pts Pts Pts Pts Pts
1.1. Core-Idea •
1. Knowledge 1.2. Behavior •
Scale 1.3. Process •
1.4. Class •
2.1. Individual •
2. Actor Scale 2.2. Organization •
2.3. Community •
3.1. Resources •
3. Context Scale
3.2. Policies •
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 83
Vol.6 (2018) no.1, pp.67-85; www.managementdynamics.ro

3.3. Capabilities •
Subtotal 10 60 90 120 0
Total Points 280
Maturity Score 28

Conclusions and implications

“Innovation Performance” as a generic term refers to the abilities and deliverables

expected from an innovation journey. In turn, Innovation Maturity is derived from
the understanding that innovation has developmental stages that can be clearly
defined, managed, measured and controlled throughout time. “Innovation Maturity”
refers to the gradual and continual improvement in quality, repeatability, and
predictability through the key performance milestones that innovation actors aspire
to.

The tri-axial model of innovation performance measurement discussed in this paper

provides a range of opportunities for innovation actors to measure and improve their
innovation activities’ performance. The components of this model complement each
other and enable highly targeted yet flexible performance analysis to be conducted.
Such a method of assessment can be used to standardize the innovation management
and assessment efforts, enable a structured approach to innovation teaching and
training as well as establish a solid base for a formal innovation learning process.

The Innovation Maturity Matrix (InnoMM) introduces a capability and maturity

assessment and reporting tool that uses all the components underlying the tri-axial
model of innovation performance measurement. The availability of an extended
InnoMM (especially in a database-driven web format) will be beneficial to innovation
actors irrespective of their type (e.g. large or small, private or public), whatever their
work area and in any sector of activity. The InnoMM and its underlying components
are still being developed and extended. Future deliverables include a web-based
interactive tool suitable for low-granularity, self-administered maturity assessment.
Capability and maturity templates, questionnaires, guides, knowledge models and
granular scoring systems are also being researched, developed and tested.

Innovation practitioners can employ the InnoMM and its underlying components to
accurately assess their own, their peers and potential partners’ capability and
maturity at selective capability stages and organizational scales. An efficient use of
InnoMM will boost fast and intuitive management of innovation activities and
deliverables within a complex environment while keeping an eye on the quality
perspective. In sum, implementing such a systematic approach to innovation
performance measurement and improvement will benefit modern organizations of
all kind by enhancing their growth, revenues, and profit from sustained innovation
management.

In the framework of our contributions, while we propose a first approach of how we

should look at innovation performance measurement, there is still no answer on
84 | Lamyaa EL BASSITI
Multi-Dimensional View of Innovation Performance from Knowledge Dynamics to Maturity
Matrix

what we actually should measure. What are the relevant KPIs that should underlie
such model? This is the focus of upcoming research works, where we will identify a
selection of KPIs based on the combination of inputs and outputs metrics that relates
to a particular performance level and fit to a specific stage of the innovation process
while focusing on a given granular scale of innovation.

References

Adams, R., Bessant, J., and Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management

measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1),
21-47.
Andrew, J.P., Haanæs, K., Michael, D.C., Sirkin, H.L., and Taylor, A. (2009). Measuring
Innovation: The Need for Action. Boston Consulting Group.
Arundel, A., and Bordoy, C. (2002). In-House Versus Ex-House: the sourcing of
knowledge for innovation. In de la Mothe, J., and Link, A.N. (Eds.), Networks,
Alliances and Partnerships in the Innovation Process (pp.67–87). Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic.
Bratianu, C. (2016). Knowledge Dynamics. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge
Economy, 4(3), 323-337.
Choo, C.W. (1998). The Knowing Organization. New York: Oxford University Pres.
Drucker, P. (1995). Managing in time of great change. New York: Truman Talley
Books.
Du Preez, N.D., and Louw, L. (2008). A framework for managing the innovation
process. In Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering
& Technology (pp.546-558). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
El Bassiti, L. (2017). Generic Ontology for Innovation Domain towards “Innovation
Interoperability”. Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Innovation
(JEMI), 13(2), 105-126.
El Bassiti, L., and Ajhoun, R. (2016). Continuous Performance Improvement of
Innovation: Bridging the Gap between Creativity and Measurement. In
Proceedings of the 28th International Business Information Management
Conference (IBIMA) (pp.4248- 4262). Seville: IBIMA.
El Bassiti, L., El Haiba, M., and Ajhoun, R. (2017). Generic Innovation Designing -
GenID- Framework: Towards a more Systematic Approach to Innovation
Management. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Knowledge
Management (ECKM) (pp.1097-1106). Reading: Academic Conferences and
Publishing International.
Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C., and Ulrich, K.T. (2010). Idea generation and the quality of
the best idea. Management science, 56(4), 591-605.
Hauser, J., and Katz, G. (1998). Metrics: you are what you measure!. European
Management Journal, 16(5), 517-528.
Kerka, F., Kriegesmann, B., and Schwering, M.G. (2009). Evaluating innovation
ideas: a comprehensive approach to new product development. International
Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 5(2), 118-137.
Liberatore, M.J., and Stylianou, A.C. (1995). Expert support systems for new product
development decision making: A modeling framework and applications.
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 85
Vol.6 (2018) no.1, pp.67-85; www.managementdynamics.ro

Management Science, 41(8), 1296-1316.

Majchrzak, A., Neece, O.E., and Cooper, L.P. (2001). Knowledge Reuse for
Innovation: The Missing Focus in Knowledge Management. Academy of
Management.
Malhotra, Y. (2002). Why Knowledge Management Systems Fail? Enablers and
Constraints of Knowledge Management in Human Enterprises. In Holsapple,
C.W. (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management 1 (pp.577-599). Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag.
McCarthy, I.P., Tsinopoulos, C., Allen, P., and Rose Anderssen, C. (2006). New
product development as a complex adaptive system of decisions. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 437-456.
McCormack, K., Ladeira, M.B., and de Oliveira, M.P.V. (2008). Supply chain maturity
and performance in Brazil. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 13(4), 272–282.
McGrath, M.E., and Romeri, M.N. (1994). The R&D Effectiveness Index: A Metric for
Product Development Performance. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 11, 213-220.
Milbergs, E., and Vonortas, N. (2004). Innovation metrics: measurement to insight.
Center for Accelerating Innovation and George Washington University,
National Innovation Initiative 21st Century Working Group, 22.
Minonne, C., and Turner, G. (2012). Business Process Management-Are you ready
for the Future?. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(3), 111-120.
Morris, L. (2011). The innovation master plan: The CEO’s guide to innovation. Walnut
Creek, CA: Innovation Academy.
Muller, A., Välikangas, L., and Merlyn, P. (2005). Metrics for innovation: guidelines
for developing a customized suite of innovation metrics. Strategy &
Leadership, 33(1), 37-45.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Perry-Smith, J.E., and Shalley, C.E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and
dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1),
89-106.
Schulze, T., Indulska, M., Geiger, D., and Korthaus, A. (2012). Idea assessment in
open innovation: A state of practice. IDEA, 5(15).
Simons, R. (1990). The role of management control systems in creating competitive
advantage: New perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(1/2),
127-143.
Wolfe, R.A. (1994). Organizational innovation: review, critique and suggested
research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405-431.

Received: September 10, 2017

Accepted: February 27, 2018