Innovation capacity and the role of information

Journal of Management Analytics

ISSN: 2327-0012 (Print) 2327-0039 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjma20

Innovation capacity and the role of information systems: a qualitative study Abdelkader Achi, Camille Salinesi & Gianluigi Viscusi To cite this article: Abdelkader Achi, Camille Salinesi & Gianluigi Viscusi (2016): Innovation capacity and the role of information systems: a qualitative study, Journal of Management Analytics, DOI: 10.1080/23270012.2016.1239228 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23270012.2016.1239228

Published online: 24 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjma20 Download by: [Abdelkader ACHI]

Date: 24 October 2016, At: 03:15

Journal of Management Analytics, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23270012.2016.1239228

Innovation capacity and the role of information systems: a qualitative study Abdelkader Achia*, Camille Salinesia and Gianluigi Viscusib a b

Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France; College of Management of Technology (CDM) – École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland (Received 10 December 2015; Revised 27 july 2016; accepted 18 September 2016) Today businesses are facing radical transformations through digitalization of services and products. Accordingly, their ability to innovate is increasingly linked to the capacity to innovate through information and communication technologies (ICTs). This article investigates the role of information systems (IS) as a key factor for innovation capacity. To this end, the article discusses an interpretive framework for understanding the degree of capacity of innovation through information systems (IS) reached by a given company and the contradictions that bound its evolution. An interpretive study is also presented, where the framework has been applied to seven French companies from various industries. Consistently with the framework, the interviews address process areas and practices related to three core categories: management, innovation engineering and support. The study reveals seven fundamental contradictions that can explain the main tendencies observed across the companies. Keywords: innovation capacity; innovation engineering; maturity models; innovation through information systems; interpretive research

1. Introduction This paper questions companies’ innovation capacity and the role of information systems (IS), particularly with regard to the challenges related to the digitalization of business. We start from the observation that many businesses undergo radical transformations through digitalization of services and products, and common-sense belief that their innovation capacity is increasingly linked to the exploration and exploitation of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Yet, besides well-known success cases (such as Google, Apple, Facebook or Amazon), there is not yet – to the best of our knowledge – a repository of best practices structured around innovation capacity dimensions. A best practice represents a practice (tactics or method) that has achieved good results and been shown through real-life implementation to be successful (Kahn, Barczak, & Moss, 2006). According to Hamel (2006, p. 5), ‘While there is no sausage crank for innovation, it’s possible to increase the odds of a “Eureka!” moment by assembling the right ingredients’. Yet these ingredients can actually be requirements or organizational practices to innovate (Moore, 2005). Taking these issues into consideration, this study is part of an extensive research aiming at *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] © 2016 Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University

2

A. Achi et al.

identifying innovative practices and develop a framework for understanding the maturity of IS innovation capacity in a given company. The framework aims to provide an integrated approach to innovation enabled by IS engineering. This approach involves implementing the best practices in companies to strengthen their IS innovation capacity. Thus, the aims of the research discussed in this article are to assess and review the framework we have developed for understanding the degree of capacity of innovation trough IS reached by a given company. The framework has been applied to seven companies in collaboration with their information technology (IT) innovation managers, to investigate the role of information systems as a key factor to innovation capacity as well as enriching it with best practices through a series of participatory workshops involving academics and practitioners. The article is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the definition of innovation capacity and the role of IS in innovation capacity throughout literature. Section 3 presents the research method and a summary of IS interpretive research. Section 4 discusses the development of the interpretive framework. Section 5 goes into detail about the qualitative study, first applying the interpretive framework. Section 6 provides a discussion of the results of the study. Finally, the article closes with a summary of the seven contradictions revealed by the study, and our perspective on the topic of IS-based innovation. 2.

Innovation capacity

Innovation may refer both to a process (R.G. Cooper, 1979; Kline & Rosenberg, 1986) and to the result of this process (product or outcome) (Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Rogers, 1995), thus taking many forms such as new products, processes, organizational forms, and business models (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002; Link & Siegel, 2007; Nambisan, Agarwal, & Tanniru, 1999; Orlikowski, 1991). Throughout this paper we will adopt a perspective that considers both of these dimensions, characterizing the different stages of the innovation process as well as its generation and adoption (Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997). Yet we will specifically focus on innovation process and how to improve the ability to innovate. This ability has been called by Wang and Pervaiz (2004, p. 304) ‘organisational innovativeness’, further defined as ‘an organisation’s overall innovative capability of introducing new products to the market, or opening up new markets, through combining strategic orientation with innovative behaviour and process’. Considering radical innovation in established firms, Chang, Chang, Chi, Chen, and Deng (2012) have investigated a set of organizational capabilities for improving their performance: openness capability, autonomy capability, integration capability and experimentation capability. Yet for other researchers the ability to innovate is named ‘innovation capacity’ (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, Sampath, & Sampath, 2009; Szeto, 2000) and defined as the continuous improvement of the overall capabilities and resources that a firm possesses for exploring and exploiting opportunities to develop new products to meet market needs. According to the recognized complexity of innovation capacity, the literature reveals that a wide range of factors impact the capacity for innovation of organizations (Koc, 2007; Sharma & Rai, 2003). Based on the literature on dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), Lawson and Samson (2001) point out that seven elements are relevant: (1) vision and strategy, (2) harnessing the competence base, (3) organizational intelligence, (4) creativity and idea management, (5) organizational


3

structures and systems, (6) culture and climate, and (7) management of technology. Other works have attempted to address the topic of innovation capacity with generic maturity models (Essmann & Du Preez, 2009; Esterhuizen, Schutte, & Du Toit, 2012; Müller-Prothmann & Stein, 2011; Toole et al., 2013), having relatively similar elements to those of the Capacity Maturity Model Integration (CMMI; Carnegie Mellon University, 2002). However, even though we can daily observe the role of ICTs in business innovation, none of the works on innovation capabilities or innovation capacity really raise the question of what are the key factors of innovation led by the use of IS. Accordingly, IS-based innovation capacity remains a topic worth investigating, with still a relatively few number of specific contributions. In particular, we argue that is worth considering the use of ICTs to enforce the logic of services and the exploitation of network externalities at the business level. The ideal situation of interest here is when the IS constitutes the fundamental infrastructure for open innovation as a complement to traditional research and development (R&D), thus allowing companies to work with both internal and external stakeholders for new ideas and expertise (Afuah & Tucci, 2012; Chesbrough, 2003; Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002; Chesbrough & Spohrer, 2006). However, IS actually covers a wider field than ICTs (Avison & Fitzgerald, 2006; Hirschheim & Klein, 2012), encompassing, among other things, the interactions between the different stakeholders. Also, the role of IT has evolved (Guillemette & Paré, 2012; Morabito, Viscusi, & Themistocleus, 2016) from a traditional role of support activity to the key instrument of the business strategy (Applegate & Elam, 1992). According to Hopkins (2010, p. 1) ‘for our era, the most important driver of innovation is information technology’. As a result, the outcome of innovation depends on a combination of factors that span from the organization of the company activities and the management of interactions with stakeholders, to the IS itself, thus requiring a kind of systematic approach or ‘innovation engineering’ that instantiates a specific and integrated innovation model. Taking the above issues into account in this article we defines IS-based innovation capacity (‘innovation capacity’ in short), as the ability of an organization to exploit its IS to elaborate new products or create new markets by combining strategic direction with innovative processes. 3.

Methodology

Interpretive studies aim to make sense of phenomena by means of the meaning that people allocated to them (Myers, 1997). Accordingly, interpretive research in IS ‘aimed at producing an understanding of the context of the information system, and the process whereby the information system influences and is influenced by the context’ (Walsham, 1993, pp. 4–5). Also, Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) defined IS interpretive research as made up of studies which ‘assume that people create and associate their own subjective and intersubjective meanings as they interact with the world around them. Interpretive researchers thus attempt to understand phenomena through accessing the meanings that participants assign to them’ (p. 5). This work adopts an interpretive approach to information systems research (Klein & Myers, 1999; Walsham, 1993, 2006). The research involves both researchers and practitioners, aiming to understand (1) how innovation capacity is developed in different industries and (2) how IS are considered part of the innovation process, either influencing or

4

A. Achi et al.

being influenced by it (Walsham, 1993). To this end, we have developed an interpretive framework to investigate in real cases (1) the means provided by IT managers involved in innovation initiatives; (2) the meaning they give to innovation capacity; (3) the diverse maturity level; and (4) the role of IS. Before introducing the phases for the development of the framework we provide a brief summary of IS interpretive research. Since the early 1990s, when these earlier publications explicitly introduce and develop interpretive research in the IS field, this method has received special attention (Klein & Myers, 1999; O’hEocha, Wang, & Conboy, 2012). Among other theoretical perspectives suitable for adoption, IS interpretive research is founded on phenomenology and hermeneutics (Boland, 1985; Stahl, 2005). For Stahl (2005), interpretive research requires us to take in consideration two aspects. The first aspect is about the ‘other’, which has to be accepted by interpretive researchers for understanding the creation of meaning and the production of facts through human interaction. The second aspect is related to ethical rules and their applications (thus, encompassing ethics, morality and prudence). Furthermore, the latest contributions to interpretive research in IS show how the interpretive process may be enriched by an extended involvement of informants and tools for co-construction and interpretation (Bygstad & Munkvold, 2011). Also, digital methods for interpretive research allow us to provide a deep understanding of social and organizational phenomena (Elbanna, 2015). In summary, interpretive research helps to decrypt human understanding and action in the social reality and within organizations. So, interpretive research plays an important role in understanding deep insights into IS phenomena related to innovation, characterized by the intensification of social and organizational interactions of different stakeholders to improve the innovation process and strengthen the innovation capacity of companies. Finally, at the state of the art, besides methodological and theoretical contributions, interpretive research has been applied in several field studies. For example, Vaast and Walsham (2009) used this method to study dynamic learning based on practice in networks. Also, Levina and Vaast (2005) adopted an interpretive stance to investigate how knowledge management practices emerge in organizations, especially considering boundary-spanning competence. 4.

Interpretive framework development

The research carried out over nearly three years (from January 2014 to June 2016) has followed three main phases: . . .

Phase 1 (2014): Review of the literature and identification of the main constructs and dimensions of an interpretive framework for innovation through IS. Phase 2 (2014–2015): Qualitative study involving practitioners, using the first version of the interpretive framework. Phase 3 (2015–2016): Review and enrichment of the framework through workshops involving practitioners.

The first phase was carried out for one year (2014) and it started by reviewing the relevant literature on innovation and IS, finally resulting in a first version of the framework developed from the variables representing the determinants of innovation via the use of IS. The first version of the framework was also supported by the description of


5

the main approaches used in companies as reported in both academic and practitioner research (Achi & Salinesi, 2015). The second phase was carried out from 8 December 2014 to 22 July 2015. A qualitative study was conducted on the basis of the first version of the framework to investigate its effectiveness in real cases for understanding (1) the means provided by IT managers involved in innovation initiatives, (2) the meaning they give to innovation capacity, (3) the diverse maturity level, and (4) the role of IS. The details on the study are provided in section 4. The study has provided insights on how managers understand IS-innovation capacity as well as on the need for a further review and enrichment of the framework with best practices. To this end, 12 workshops took place during the third phase, from 14 April 2015 to 12 February 2016, involving both researchers and practitioners considered experts (Table 1 provides details on the different participants). The aim of these workshops was to gather information from the experts on the role of IS in innovation process and the practices they estimate worth considering as the ‘best’ ones for its development. In particular, the definition of innovation through IS and how it should be measured or evaluated in terms of the maturity of the current innovation practices was one of the main topics discussed, with the aim of consolidating the constructs making up the first version of the framework. During the workshops, experts highlighted the need for a working definition of generic innovation process, which could work for as many stakeholders as possible. The need for a change in assessment methods, enabling researchers and practitioners to measure innovation as a process, and not just as a product, was also raised. In addition, another goal was to identify best practices suitable to be implemented in order to strengthen innovation capacity through IS, thus leading to an enrichment of the first version of the framework with insights from practice. Consequently, during the workshops, the researchers first presented the first version of the framework to the audience; then the workshops focused on a common discussion of the framework and a review of innovation practices for each of the process area of the framework shown in Figure 1, which presents the path that has led to a review and improvement of the first version of the framework through the interaction with practitioners. The current version of the framework for assessing the maturity of innovation capacity enabled by IS includes three categories of process identified in Phase 1 Table 1.

Participants in the workshops, with position and business sector.

Expert

Position

Business sector

1

Responsible for technological innovation laboratory Director – expert in business transformation Responsible for IT innovation IT entrepreneur

Insurance

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Consulting Energy Software engineering and innovation Marketing manager Software Chief technology officer and innovation manager Lingerie Professor Academic Consultant and researcher Consulting and academic

IT: information technology.

6

A. Achi et al.

Figure 1. (IS).

Methodology to review the framework for innovation through information systems

(management, innovation engineering and support), and a series of process areas has been introduced (see Appendix 1 for the detailed framework). As mentioned, for each process a series of best practices was identified during the workshops as the main enrichment with regard to the version developed during Phase 1 as well as the practices resulting from the qualitative study in Phase 2. Yet the consolidation of both categories and process areas can be considered a result of the workshops carried out during Phase 3. As pointed out in an earlier study (Achi, Salinesi, & Viscusi, 2016), the structure of the framework is similar to the CMMI developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), aiming to provide an IS perspective complementing it with managerial and organizational capabilities. Consequently, the three processes of our framework aim to be the building blocks for the further development of a maturity model, thus providing a systematic framework to carry out the comparative evaluation and improvement of innovation capacity. In what follows, we discuss in detail the results of the qualitative study carried out during the second phase of the research.

5.

The study

In this section we discuss the results from a qualitative study using the first version of the framework to investigate its effectiveness on real cases for understanding (1) the


7

means provided by IT managers involved in innovation initiatives; (2) the meaning they give to innovation capacity; (3) the diverse maturity level; and (4) the role of IS. Furthermore, these elements are suitable to provide insights on how innovation capacity is developed in different industries and how to improve it. The study was carried out following the three stages discussed in what follows: (1) building the sample, (2) performing the interviews, and (3) analysis. At the first stage each candidate company was contacted to arrange a meeting for presenting the research project with different stakeholders, mostly decision makers or those responsible for innovation projects. The goal of this first two-hour meeting was to allow the candidate informants to understand the purpose of the research and identify the right people for the interviews. One hundred companies were contacted at this stage, either directly, or during an event organized in association with the French club of Chief Information Officers (Club Urba – EA). Only 20 companies declared their interest, and agreed to meet the research team. At the end of the stage, only seven among these companies were selected for the study. Table 2 shows the characteristics of these companies, all based in France, facing an uncertain environment, and operating in various business sectors. At the second stage, interviews were carried out with nine innovation leaders from the seven participating companies (six large French companies and one small French company), from 8 December 2014 to 22 July 2015 (partially overlapping with the early workshop activities of Phase 3, discussed in section 4). The nine interviews lasted 1 hour and 30 minutes, on average, and the topics followed the framework in Figure 1. In general, the focus of the interviews was on innovation and digital transformation. During this stage, each interviewee (usually an IT manager responsible for or involved in innovation activities; see Table 2) was asked to specify the scope of the interventions as well as the innovation process she was involved in with regard to the company’s business goals. The interviews combined both open and closed questions. It is worth noting that during the interviews, the researchers left each interviewee the

Table 2. Company

Characteristics of the study companies. Business sector

A

Software

B

Software

C

Banking

D

Cosmetics and wellbeing

E F G

Marketing studies Automotive Public employment

Function of the interviewees Senior Regional Marketing Manager Southern EMEA France and Southern Europe Marketing Manager IT Architect Technology Driven Innovation Manager Digital IT Manager Responsible for corporate architecture President Responsible for innovation Director of digital program

Notes: IT, information technology; EMEA, Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Number of employees 1300 2400 188,000

15,000

25 184,804 54,000

8

A. Achi et al.

chance to deal with new themes or practices and, when asked, to disclose his/her views on the interview itself. The third stage of the study was dedicated to the transcription, coding and analysis of the data collected during the interviews. At this stage, all the results were shared with the interviewees to avoid mistakes such as misunderstandings, poor interpretations or coding errors. Interviewees were asked to return the data collected with their comments, subsequently used by the researchers to develop a further assessment summary that was also systematically provided to each company involved. The analysis of interview materials was conducted by process area, and, for the sake of consistency, the interviewees’ answers were grouped per company. Finally, a global maturity analysis for the identified innovation practices has been performed. This was done by the researchers directly involved in the interview process, and by one external researcher to consolidate the analysis and develop an outside-in perspective. As said in section 4, the interpretive framework shown in Figure 1 used to guide the interview process was inspired by the CMMI model (Cross, 2002), a globally recognized reference for practitioners, aiming to provide an IS perspective, complementing it with managerial and organizational capabilities, thus giving rise to new variants in other areas such as systems engineering, purchasing and service, among others. As mentioned in section 4, the process areas are grouped in three categories: management, innovation engineering and support. Each process area relies on a collection of ‘best practices’ that are expected to allow companies to increase their innovation capacity. In order to investigate the innovation practices of companies in a systematic way, a series of questions is also defined for each and every practice of all the innovation process areas. These questions were designed for managers in charge of or involved in innovation initiatives in each of the considered companies. Their purpose is to learn more about each practice and its implementation, and also explore whether they have other best practices that were not initially identified in the framework. The example shown in Table 3 presents three questions for the process area ‘culture of innovation’, each corresponding to a particular best practice in the process area. In summary, in order to explore the different dimensions of innovation by IS in a systematic way, the interview guide was created starting from the collection of all questions associated with best practices from all the process areas covered by the framework. Finally, the interview guide (see Appendix 2 for the details) gathered structured questions around

Table 3.

Practices and questions in the process area ‘culture of innovation’.

Process area Best practice 1 Question 1 Best practice 2 Question 2 Best practice 3 Question 3

Culture of innovation To be open for experimentation Do you think your company encourages collaborators to experiment with new ideas? Agree to take risks In your opinion, does your company tolerate risk-taking? Authorize possible failure without stigmatizing collaborators Does your company encourage innovation initiatives even if they may fail or produce errors?


9

the process areas of the framework, based on the six main issues identified in both the management of IS and innovation management literature: (1) Innovation strategy and IS governance practices (innovation strategy, role of IT in innovation, communication). (2) Organizational practices of innovation engineering process (formalization of the process, collaboration of internal and external actors, methods and tools to develop the capacity for innovation, the creativity-related practices for employees and management). (3) Knowledge management practices (skill development, knowledge sharing to enhance creativity and innovation). (4) Human capital management practices (assessment of contributions, valuing employees, and creation of organizational trust). (5) Culture of innovation practices (identity, standards, habits, and the system of prohibitions and obligations shared within the organization, risk-taking, the right to make mistakes, and experimentation culture). (6) Technology watch and business scanning practices (knowledge of customer expectations and their evolutions, technology trends watch).

6. Discussion of the results Overall, the interpretive study has shown an increasing interest of both IT and business managers, especially in what concerns the innovation process through the use of IS. In particular, there is a clear interest in implementing an IT innovation unit within the Department of Information Systems (DIS) and/or launching dedicated projects for innovation and digital transformation. Another initial observation is that often the interviewees wondered about the methods, techniques and tools that might allow to innovate faster and to meet the challenges of an increasingly uncertain and complex environment. In what follows we present an analysis of the results through (1) a summary for each company, and (2) by process area for all the companies from the sample. 6.1.

Analysis of innovation practices by company

Innovation practices enabled by IS in the various companies are quite varied, as shown by the summary below for each company in the sample. Considering now Company A, IS have an important place in its innovation strategy. The innovation process is simplified into three phases (ideation, validation and implementation) and a key indicator of innovation is ‘generated turnover’. Organizational practices of the firm show a high level of maturity compared to the rest of the sample (considering: culture of innovation, diversity of profiles, small project teams, partnerships with actors of the ecosystem, strong commitment to develop the internal human capital, organizational environment of trust, management style adapted). The interviewee points out that European regulations are a constraint to innovation for her company. On the contrary, in Company B the DIS and marketing drive innovation. Emerging technologies and IS are at the heart of the innovation process. The company operates adopting a start-up style to facilitate the interaction of internal and external stakeholders (e.g. customers,

10

A. Achi et al.

research chairs, suppliers) to manage innovation. The internal environment increases motivation, curiosity and entrepreneurship, relying on multiple methods and techniques to innovate. While innovation capacity seems at a very high level of maturity in companies A and B, companies C and D face several constraints limiting their performance. As for Company C, the organization does not have a proper process for innovation through the use of IT/IS. The organizational structure is highly hierarchical, and the process of decision-making is very long, with a low confidence level. The adopted model of innovation is closed, with an exception made for some innovative products exploiting external cooperation. Internal communication on innovation is very weak, while the company communicates intensively on innovation with actors outside its boundaries (through newspaper communication, advertisement, sponsoring of innovation events, etc.). It is worth noting that this organization does not have a culture of innovation and does not invest in the development of its human capital to strengthen the innovation capacity. Company D also faces a set of organizational as well as strategy constraints, preventing a satisfying level of innovation capacity: there is no formalized process of innovation, recognized and implemented by all stakeholders (CIO, business – or other – units); whereas IT is perceived as a profit center. The control and decision-making mechanisms are little adapted to the process of innovation despite the existence of a yearly budget dedicated to IT innovation. However, the company recognizes the existence of best practices of innovation, notwithstanding the difficulties related to the lack of internal sponsorship. Moving to companies E and F, they show a higher development of their innovation capacity though IS. Indeed, at Company E the emerging technologies and IS are at the heart of the innovation strategy and the company’s offering. IS are a key factor in the innovation strategy as well as among best practices in the management of human capital, and it is explicitly the basis for a culture of innovation as well as its implementation. As the company is a marketing service provider, the outcome of the innovation process ultimately depends on interventions related to customer management. At Company F also, the business is aware of the importance of emerging technologies in the process of innovation. It has no dedicated IT/ IS strategy despite the support of the top management to innovation initiatives. However, the company has implemented projects that meet its processing needs (e.g. connected car), even if the current regulation is not yet in line with the innovation provided. The human capital is at the heart of the innovation strategy. In fact, the organization has the expertise to set the necessary conditions for employees dedicated to innovation; however, the setting cannot be generalized to all staff because of the high cost. Thus, the company fosters innovation by investing in human capital mainly for dedicated projects. The maturity level of the innovation practices is high but concentrated only in the limited area of some innovation projects. Finally, at Company G there is a ‘black-box’ attitude toward innovation through IS, thus limiting its current innovation capacity. Actually, the organization does not have an IT-based strategy of innovation. However, in the last three years, the company has carried out projects of digital transformation, sponsored by the top management. Thus, within the scope of these transformation projects, the company has an average level of maturity of innovation practices, with a short-term organizational mode. Indeed, there is no formalized process of innovation, recognized and implemented by all stakeholders (DIS – business – other units). Furthermore,

Journal of Management Analytics Table 4.

11

Degree of innovation capacity for the companies in the study.

Company

Business sector

Innovation capacity

A B E F G D C

Software Software Marketing studies Automotive Public employment Cosmetics and well-being Banking

Very high Very high High High Medium Low Very low

because of an internal organizational culture unsuited to the requirements of innovation, the management in charge of digital transformation relies on external actors by selecting a small internal team (five people) to carry out the projects and avoid lead change within the organization. Finally, Table 4 provides a summary of the degree of innovation capacity resulting from the above analysis for the companies considered in the study. It is worth noting that companies in the software industry are the top performers, followed by companies in marketing studies and automotive. Quite surprisingly, the company in the banking sector proves to be the one with the lowest degree of innovation capacity even compared to the public employee agency. 6.2.

Analysis of innovation practices by process area

6.2.1. Innovation strategy and IS governance practices The analysis conducted on the sample shows that none of the considered companies has a formally defined innovation strategy dedicated to innovation through the use of IS; while at the same time the majority of interviewees noted the importance of having a strategy and a clear vision for innovation in an uncertain environment. The governance of innovation within DIS is characterized in most of the cases by less formalized control, communication and sponsoring. In general, it is worth noting the development of IT innovation units within DIS or small entities dedicated to IT innovation or digital transformation. The DIS recognizes the existence of difficulties to collaborate with the business for innovation. Furthermore, the DIS defines the means and actions to be implemented to make the IS an innovation lever for business value. Yet the governance of the IT/business ecosystem becomes a relevant requirement in most of the industries considered. In summary, the innovation process by the IS appears to be at an early stage with companies not having feedbacks or indicators on the related activities. 6.2.2.

Organizational practices of innovation engineering process

The majority of the companies in our sample do not have a formalized innovation process, recognized and implemented by all stakeholders. Some companies have simplified the process into three phases (ideation, validation and implementation). Others focus on the management of innovation projects without paying the required attention and importance to the process itself since the initial stages. The interviewees expressed

12

A. Achi et al.

the need to support the activities as a standard and recognized process for all stakeholders. All interviewees recognized the importance of multidisciplinary teams in innovation activities. As for partnerships, the implementation of open innovation practices start being adopted and broadcast despite the persistence of mistrust inherent to the risks related to openness.

6.2.3.

Knowledge management practices

The knowledge management dedicated to innovation is often poorly understood and generally equated with knowledge bases that are difficult to exploit in practice. Crowdsourcing practices, knowledge sharing within communities and organizational learning are very present in most of the DIS, the majority of companies having infrastructures to support these practices; yet the appropriate level of familiarity with the required technologies is not consistent across business units.

6.2.4. Human capital management practices The interviewees agree that their companies offer talents the freedom to express themselves and promote the development of expertise; however, the social climate, the wellbeing of employees, and the adoption of management of human capital adapted to innovation remain weak. The synergy between internal and external human capital is non-existent except for structures in which prevails a start-up spirit. It is worth noting that companies in the sample having an Anglo-Saxon origin (A, B) are a step ahead in terms of innovation practices related to human capital management through the development of training systems, recognition and creation of an enabling environment for innovation (see also Table 4).

6.2.5. Culture of innovation practices Culture innovation practices are present or in progress in small-scale structures. In large-sized companies (in terms of number of employees and units), the hierarchical structure represents a major constraint to developing a suitable culture that enables innovation practices (companies G and C). Yet, also in this case, the companies of the sample that have an Anglo-Saxon culture (companies A and B) encourage employees to take initiatives, accept risk taking and give time to develop innovations (see also Table 4).

6.2.6. Technology watch and business scanning practices Technology trend watch and business practices are implemented in all the firms in the sample. However not systematically involved, the DIS guarantees coverage of the technological watch in all strategic areas. Nevertheless, the results of trend analyses are often not used systematically or only by a small part of the staff of the companies in the sample. An exception is Company A, where the results are systematically sent to all employees. Finally, we found a high level of maturity of foresight practices in the companies operating in ICT (companies A and B) or in nearby industries (Company E).


13

7. Conclusion Nowadays, we are witnessing a renewal of organizational and managerial practices that results – to a very large extent – from the perceived benefits of a technologyenabled innovation. In particular, ICT and IS have played a critical role in the rise of new open innovation systems. Companies have never had so many opportunities and strong demands for increasingly sophisticated products and services in their ecosystems. Yet we assist a new kind of ‘innovation divide’. However, innovation can be considered part of the DNA of ‘digital native’ businesses, for other companies implementing good innovation practices through ICT require a radical and permanent improvement that encompasses all of the business dimensions (cultural, organizational, human, etc.). Where should we begin? What is the effectiveness of the various practices? How should we evaluate the strengths and areas of improvement of companies in terms of ICT-enabled innovation? This article has presented the building blocks of an interpretive framework for understanding the degree of innovation capacity through information systems (IS) reached by a given company. To this end, the article has also reported an exploratory study that was conducted among six large French companies and one small French company (E) from different sectors. Through this study, we have observed a change in the vision of managers on innovation process. Taking the above issues into account, Table 5 shows the key contradictions emerging from the analysis of the interviews. First, the innovation process was often seen as a black box without the need to define a standard process and an innovation strategy. Also, the study has shown that innovation units within directions of information systems emerged only in the last five years. In fact, we have noticed that the majority of interviewees raised the issue of organizing the innovation process internally and with the ecosystems of different companies (see, e.g. contradictions 2, 4 and 5 in Table 5). As soon as this idea emerges, managers are faced with a lack of references as models of best practices that are easy to implement in order to support the transformation of business and to federate all stakeholders to innovate (see e.g. contradictions 2 and 4 in Table 5). Furthermore, the study has shown that companies within the sample mostly agree on good practices, while having different maturity levels. What is the role of IS in handling these contradictions? Of course IS can participate in innovation by introducing new technologies in organizations, or delivering services through new technologies. But also, interestingly, they can create networks of innovators within, outside and across companies, and they can build systems in a way that lets actors and customers participate to innovation. Last, IS government bodies can use the design thinking methodologies (Gruber, de Leon, George, & Thompson, 2015) to shape the innovation strategy, and document and standardize innovation processes – just like any other business or engineering process. In this article we have discussed a framework that can support companies in understanding their maturity in terms of innovation capacity through IS, suitable to disclosing the contradictions requiring actions for improving the capabilities necessary to face the challenges of digitalization. Nevertheless, more evidence needs to be gathered, cases documented, and techniques experimented and replicated. We wonder if sharing experiences between researchers and practitioners could fuel this process of continuous improvement of practices and help in finding the levers adapted to each business context to strengthen the capacity for innovation. To this end, future work will include the application of

14

Table 5. Key contradictions. Contradictions

Evidence

Process areas

(1) ‘Formalize the innovation strategy! But innovation is the strategy’.

A, B, C, D, E, F, G - No formal innovation strategy. - Development of IT innovation units within DIS or small entities dedicated to IT innovation or digital transformation.

- Innovation strategy - IS governance

C, D, E, G - There is no formalized process of innovation.

A. Achi et al.

(2) ‘Standardize the innovation processes! But innovation processes are not even documented’.

Companies

- Innovation process: - Ideation - Demonstration and evaluation - Project management - Market launch

(3) ‘Create networks of multidisciplinary teams! But innovation is still centralized’.

C - Develop innovative projects without a standard approach.

- Innovation process: - Ideation - Demonstration and evaluation - Project management - Market launch

(4) ‘Foster open innovation! But sensible information cannot be disclosed’.

A, B, C, D, E, F, G - The organizational structure is highly hierarchical, and the process of decision-making is very long with a low confidence level.

C, D, F, G - Innovation process with different opening levels.

- Knowledge management

(6) ‘Take a risk by betting on talents! But do not give them the right to fail’.

C, D - Management wants all initiatives to result in innovation and does not accept risk-taking (D). - Managers do not allow eventual failure and employees are at risk of being stigmatized on failure (C).

- Culture of innovation

(7) ‘Keep up to date with trends! But maintain stability’.


(5) ‘Exploit the knowledge management system! But people don’t understand it and have no idea how to overcome the barrier of its rigidity’.

- Innovation process: Ideation - Demonstration and evaluation - Project management - Market launch

A, B, C, D, E, F, G - This organization does not have a culture of innovation and does not invest in the development of its human capital to strengthen innovation capacity.

15

Notes: IS, information system; IT, information technology; DIS, Department of Information Systems.

- Technology watch and business scanning

16

A. Achi et al.

methods enabling individuals and small groups to understand the complex processes of innovation, such as interpretive structural modelling or ISM (Dwivedi et al., 2016; Malone, 1975; Warfield, 1974).

References Achi, A., & Salinesi, C. (2015). Proposed model of innovation by IS (33rd ed.) (pp. 130–150). Biarritz, France: INFORSID. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from http://inforsid.fr/ Biarritz2015/wp-content/uploads/actes2015/mm2-1.pdf Achi, A., Salinesi, C., & Viscusi, G. (2016). Information systems for innovation: A comparative analysis of maturity models’ characteristics [online]. In J. Krogstie, H. Mouratidis, & J. Su (Eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops: CAiSE 2016 International Workshops, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 13–17 June 2016, Proceedings – LNBIP 249 (pp. 78–90). Cham(ZG), Switzerland: Springer International. http://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-319-395647_8 Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–375. http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0146 Ahls, B. (2001). Organizational behavior: A model for cultural change. Industrial Management, 43(4), 6–7. Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Keskin, H., & Lynn, G. S. (2006). Transactive memory system in new product development teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), 95–111. http://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2005.857570 Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105–1120. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.001 Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:33.0.CO;2-C Applegate, L. M., & Elam, J. J. (1992). New information systems leaders: A changing role in a changing world. MIS Quarterly, 16(4), 469–490. http://doi.org/10.2307/249732 Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173. http://doi.org/10.2307/2295952 Avison, D., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). Information systems development: Methodologies, techniques and tools. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill International. Baldwin, H. (2012). Time off to innovate: Good idea or a waste of tech talent? [online]. Retrieved from http://www.computerworld.com/article/2506129/it-management/time-off-toinnovate–good-idea-or-a-waste-of-tech-talent-.html Bernstein, H. M., Kissinger, J. P., & Kirksey, W. (1998). Moving innovation into practice. In E. A. Downey, Ed., Proceedings of the First International Civil Engineering Conference (pp. 250– 259). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineeers. Boland, R. (1985). Phenomenology: A preferred approach to research on information systems. In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, & T. Wood-Harper (Eds.), Research methods in information systems: IFIP colloquium proceedings (pp. 193–201). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. Boland, R., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631–647. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0304 Brattström, A., Löfsten, H., & Richtnér, A. (2012). Creativity, trust and systematic processes in product development. Research Policy, 41(4), 743–755. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011. 12.003 Brem, A., & Voigt, K.-I. (2009). Integration of market pull and technology push in the corporate front end and innovation management – insights from the German software industry. Technovation, 29(5), 351–367.


17

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34. Bygstad, B., & Munkvold, B. E. (2011). Exploring the role of informants in interpretive case study research in IS. Journal of Information Technology, 26(1), 32–45. http://doi.org/10. 1057/jit.2010.15 Carayannis, E., & Coleman, J. (2005). Creative system design methodologies: The case of complex technical systems. Technovation, 25, 831–840. Carnegie Mellon University. (2002). Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI SM), Version 1.1. Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute. Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness?. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 87–98. http://doi.org/10.1108/ 13673270010372242 Cavusgil, S. T., Calantone, R. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation capability. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18(1), 6–21. http://doi.org/10. 1108/08858620310458615 Chang, Y.-C., Chang, H.-T., Chi, H.-R., Chen, M.-H., & Deng, L.-L. (2012). How do established firms improve radical innovation performance? The organizational capabilities view. Technovation, 32(7–8), 441–451. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.03.001 Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Chesbrough, H. W., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in open innovation (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chesbrough, H. W., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555. http://doi.org/10.1093/icc/11.3.529 Chesbrough, H. W., & Spohrer, J. (2006). A research manifesto for services science. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 35–40. http://doi.org/10.1145/1139922.1139945 Choo, C. W. (2001). Information management for the intelligent organization (3rd ed.). Medford, NJ: Information Today. Cooper, R. B. (2000). Information technology development creativity: A case study of attempted radical change. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 24(2), 245–276. http://aisel. aisnet.org/misq/vol24/iss2/4 Cooper, R. G. (1979). The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure. Journal of Marketing, 14, 93–103. Cooper, R. G. (1993). Winning at new products: Accelerating the process from idea to launch. NewYork: Addison-Wesley. Cooper, R. G. (2011). Perspective: The innovation dilemma: How to innovate when the market is mature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(s1), 2–27. http://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1540-5885.2011.00858.x Cross, S. (2002). Reflections on the process revolution. In D. Reifer, (Ed.), IEEE Tutorial on Software Management (6th ed., pp. 77–90). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press. Cross, S. E. (2013). A model to guide organizational adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Technology Management Conference & 19th ICE Conference, (pp. 1–11). The Hague, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7352653/ Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Sakano, T. (2000). Success through commitment and trust. Journal of World Business, 35(3), 223–240. Retrieved from https://waseda.pure.elsevier.com/ ja/publications/success-through-commitment-and-trust-the-soft-side-of-strategic-a Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422–1433. http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32. 11.1422 Dhondt, S. (2003). Knowledge management, innovation and creativity. (TNO Report 018.3020150). Den Haag, The Netherlands: TNO Work and Employment. Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20–29. http://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710762684

18

A. Achi et al.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Janssen, M., Slade, E. L., Rana, N. P., Weerakkody, V., Millard, J., … Snijders, D. (2016). Driving innovation through big open linked data (BOLD): Exploring antecedents using interpretive structural modelling. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–16. http://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10796-016-9675-5 Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal Of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105–123. Elbanna, A. (2015). The digital turn in interpretive research: Opportunities and limitations [online]. In 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2015, Puerto Rico, August 13–15, 2015. Association for Information Systems. Retrieved from http://aisel. aisnet.org/amcis2015/ResearchMethods/GeneralPresentations/1 Essmann, H., & Du Preez, N. (Eds.). (2009). An innovation capabiliy maturity model – development and initial application. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 3(5), 376–387. Esterhuizen, D., Schutte, C., & Du Toit, A. (2012). A knowledge management framework to grow innovation capability maturity [online]. South African Journal of Information Management, 14(1). Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v14i1.495 Florida, R., & Goodnight, J. (2005). Managing for creativity. Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 124–131. Franke, N., & Hippel, E. V. (2003). Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software, Research Policy, 32(7), 1199–1215. Gallagher, D. (2011). Why giving employees paid, unstructured time pays off. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/ why-giving-employees-paid-unstructured-time-pays-off/ Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. Omega – International Journal of Management Science, 25(1), 15–28. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0305048396000436 Gruber, M., de Leon, N., George, G., & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by design. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 1–7. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.4001 Guillemette, M. G., & Paré, G. (2012). Toward a new theory of the contribution of the IT function in organizations. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 529–551. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2481639.2481649 Gupta, P. (2011). Leading innovation change – The Kotter way. International Journal of Innovation Science, 3(3), 141–150. http://doi.org/10.1260/1757-2223.3.3.141 Hall, E., & Smith, A. B. (2016). Driving innovation the CEO’s guide to innovation: An act of leadership, the CEO’s guide to driving innovation. Pittsburgh: Development Dimensions International. Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(2), 5. Hansen, M. T., & Birkinshaw, J. (2007). The innovation value chain. Harvard Business Review, June, 121–130. Hartmann, A. (2006). The role of organizational culture in motivating innovative behaviour in construction firms. Construction Innovation, 6(3), 159–172. http://doi.org/10.1108/ 14714170610710712 Hartono, A. (2015). The 6th Indonesia International Conference on Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Small Business (IICIES 2014). Developing new ideas & capabilitybased framework for innovation process: Firm analysis for Indonesia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 169, 161–169. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.298 Hausman, A. (2005). Innovativeness among small businesses: Theory and propositions for future research. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(8), 773–782. Heifetz, R. A., Linsky, M., & Grashow, A. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Heising, W. (2012). The integration of ideation and project portfolio management – A key factor for sustainable success. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 582–595. http:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.014


19

Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2012). A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(4), 188–235. Hopkins, M. S. (2010). The 4 ways IT is revolutionizing innovation: An interview with Erik Brynjolfsson. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(3), 51–56. http://doi.org/10.1080/ 13603110903317684 ISACA. (2012). COBIT 5: A business framework for the governance and management of enterprise IT. Rolling Meadows, IL: Isaca. Jarvis, J. (2011). What would google do?: Reverse-engineering the fastest growing company in the history of the world (Reprint ed.). New York; Enfield: HarperBusiness. Judge, P. C. (2001). How Will Your Company Adapt? [online]. Retrieved from https://www. fastcompany.com/44192/how-will-your-company-adapt Kahn, K. B., Barczak, G., & Moss, R. (2006). Perspective: Establishing an NPD best practices framework. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(2), 106–116. http://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00186.x Kauser, S., & Shaw, V. (2004). The influence of behavioural and organisational characteristics on the success of international strategic alliances. International Marketing Review, 21(1), 17–52. http://doi.org/10.1108/02651330410522934 Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93. http://doi.org/10. 2307/249410 Kline, S., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy (pp. 275–305). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Koc, T. (2007). Organizational determinants of innovation capacity in software companies. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 53(3), 373–385. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.05.003 Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2008). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Krishnan, R. T., & Jha, S. K. (2011). Innovation strategies in emerging markets: What can we learn from Indian market leaders? ASCI Journal of Management, 41(1), 21–45. Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P. R., & Matthing, J. (2002). Users as a hidden resource for creativity: Findings from an experimental study on user involvement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(1), 55–61. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00236 Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 377– 400. http://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919601000427 Lee, S.-H., Wong, P.-K., & Chong, C.-L. (2005). Human and social capital explanations for R&D outcomes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(1), 59–68. http://doi. org/10.1109/TEM.2004.839955 Leiponen, A. (2005). Skills and innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23, 303–323. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335– 363. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25148682 Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A capability-based framework for open innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1315– 1338. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00854.x Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2007). Innovation, entrepreneurship, and technological Change. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Malone, D. W. (1975). An introduction to the application of interpretive structural modeling. Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(3), 397–404. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. Martin, M. J. C. (1994). Managing innovation and entrepreneurship in technology-based firms. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Martin, R. L. (2011). The innovation catalysts. Harvard Business Review, 89, 82–87.

20

A. Achi et al.

Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64–74. http://doi.org/ 10.1108/14601060310456337 Mohammad, M., & Romeri, M. (2007). The road map for innovation success. White Paper. Waltham, MA: PRTM and Microsoft Corporation. Moore, G. A. (2005). Dealing with Darwin: How great companies innovate at every phase of their evolution. London: Penguin Books. Morabito, V., Viscusi, G., & Themistocleus, M. (2016). Big data and analytics leaders: The changing role of CIO. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMIS Conference on Computers and People Research (pp. 39–46). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2890602. 2890619 Müller-Prothmann, T., & Stein, A. (2011). I2MM – Integrated innovation maturity model for Lean assessment of innovation capability [online]. In XXII ISPIM Conference 2011 (p. 1– 11). Sustainability in Innovation, Hamburg, Germany: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1868223 Myers, M. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems [online]. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 21(2). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol21/iss2/6 Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R., & Tanniru, M. (1999). Organizational mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in information technology. MIS Quarterly, 23(3), 365–395. http://doi.org/ 10.2307/249468 Nauyalis, C. (2013). A new framework for assessing your innovation program: Introducing the innovation management maturity modelTM by planview. White Paper (pp. 1–9) [online]. Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.planview.com/company/press-releases/introducesinnovation-management-maturity-model/ Nemery, P., Ishizaka, A., Camargo, M., & Morel, L. (2012). Enriching descriptive information in ranking and sorting problems with visualizations techniques. Journal of Modelling in Management, 7(2), 130–147. http://doi.org/10.1108/17465661211242778 Nevo, D., & Wand, Y. (2005). Organizational memory information systems: A transactive memory approach. Decision Support Systems, 39(4), 549–562. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss. 2004.03.002 Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. O’Connor, G. C. (2008). Grabbing lightning: Building a capability for breakthrough innovation (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O’hEocha, C., Wang, X., & Conboy, K. (2012). The use of focus groups in complex and pressurised IS studies and evaluation using Klein & Myers principles for interpretive research. Information Systems Journal, 22(3), 235–256. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011. 00387.x Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). Oslo manual: Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris, France: OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2011). Skills for innovation and research [online]. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/ content/book/9789264097490-en Orlikowski, W. J. (1991). Radical and incremental innovations in systems development: An empirical investigation of case tools (Working paper No. 221). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28. http:// doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.1 Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., Sampath, P. G., & Sampath, P. G. (2009). The gene revolution and global food security: Biotechnology innovation in latecomers. New York: Springer. Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2006). From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 198–227. http://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0094 Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (2004). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best run companies. New York: Collins Business Essentials. Pisano, G. P. (1996). The development factory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.


21

Pisano, G. P., & Verganti, R. (2008). Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard Business Review, 86, 76–78. PwC. (2012). How to drive innovation and business value: Leveraging emerging technology for sustainable growth (p. 10) [online]. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/us/en/increasing-it-effectiveness/publications/how-to-drive-innovationand-business-value.html Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Salerno, M. S., Gomes, L. A. de V., Silva, D. O. da, Bagno, R. B., & Freitas, S. L. T. U. (2015). Innovation processes: Which process for which project?. Technovation, 35, 59–70. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.012 Samaddar, S., & Kadiyala, S. S. (2006). An analysis of interorganizational resource sharing decisions in collaborative knowledge creation. European Journal of Operational Research, 170(1), 192–210. Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeejores/v_3a170_3ay_ 3a2006_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a192-210.htm Sharma, S., & Rai, A. (2003). An assessment of the relationship between ISD leadership characteristics and IS innovation adoption in organizations. Journal Information and Management, 40(5), 391–401. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00049-6 Stahl, B. C. (2005). A critical view of the ethical nature of interpretive research: Paul Ricceur and the Other [online]. ECIS 2005 Proceedings, (Paper 29). Retrieved from http://aisel. aisnet.org/ecis2005 Szeto, E. (2000). Innovation capacity: working towards a mechanism for improving innovation within an inter-organizational network. The TQM Magazine, 12(2), 149–158. http://doi.org/ 10.1108/09544780010318415 Tabarrok, A. (2011). Launching the innovation renaissance: A new path to bring smart ideas to market fast. New York: TED Books. Tambe, P., Hitt, L. M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). The extroverted firm: How external information practices affect innovation and productivity. Management Science, 58(5), 843–859. http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1446 Taylor, A. I. (2009). Fixing up Ford, CNN Money [online]. Retrieved from http://money.cnn. com/2009/05/11/news/companies/mulally_ford.fortune/index.htm. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266 (199708)18:73.0.CO;2-Z Thamhain, H. J. (2003). Managing innovative R&D teams. R&D Management, 33(3), 297–311. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00299 Thomke, S. H. (1998). Experimentation in the design of new products. Management Science, 44, 743–762. Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (4th ed.). Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Toole, T. M., Hallowell, M., & Chinowsky, P. (2013). A tool for enhancing innovation in construction organizations. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 3(1), 32–50. http://doi.org/ 10.1080/21573727.2012.717531 Vaast, E., & Walsham, G. (2009). Trans-situated learning: Supporting a network of practice with an information infrastructure. Information Systems Research, 20(4), 547–564. http://doi.org/ 10.1287/isre.1080.0228 Visser, M., Nederhof, W. P., Faems, D., Song, M., Looy, B., & Visscher, K. (2010). Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance. Technovation, 30(5–6), 291–299. http://doi.org/10. 1016/j.technovation.2009.09.008 Wallin, M. W., & Krogh, G. V. (2010). Organizing for open innovation: Focus on the integration of knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145–154. Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations (1st ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15 (3), 320–330. http://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000589

22

A. Achi et al.

Wang, C. L., & Pervaiz, K. A. (2004). The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303–313. http://doi.org/10.1108/14601060410565056 Warfield, J. N. (1974). Toward interpretation of complex structural models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (5), 405–417. Yang, C., Zhang, Q., & Ding, S. (2015). An evaluation method for innovation capability based on uncertain linguistic variables. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 256, 160–174. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2014.12.154 Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181–194. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2009.08.003

Appendices

Appendix 1. Categories

Framework for innovation capacity maturity driven by IS. Process areas (PA) and best practices (BP)

Sources Authors

Innovation engineering

PA. Innovation strategy (IS) IS.BP1. Have an innovation strategy and maintain its consistency with the market IS.BP2. Develop and communicate the vision and strategy for innovation PA. IS governance (ISG) ISG.BP1. Visionary leadership ISG.BP2. Innovation is supported/CEO engaged around innovation ISG.BP3. Measures of innovation process (ideas, projects, the small wins, etc.) ISG.BP4. Organizational and governance structure for innovation ISG.BP5. Innovation Leadership PA. Idea generation (IG) IG.BP1. Have an innovation process IG.BP2. Methodology for developing innovations and institutionalize innovation in an organization. IG.BP3. Ideation and exploration of concepts

(Mohammad & Romeri, 2007) (Cross, 2013; Nauyalis, 2013; PwC, 2012)

X X

(Gupta, 2011; Kouzes & Posner, 2008; Taylor, 2009)

X

(Anderson & West, 1998; Tidd & Bessant, 2009) (Hall & Smith, 2016; PwC, 2012)

X X X

(Gupta, 2011)

X

(Visser et al., 2010)

X

(R.L. Martin, 2011) (Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007; Müller-Prothmann & Stein, 2011; Salerno, Gomes, Silva, Bagno, & Freitas, 2015) (Müller-Prothmann & Stein, 2011; Thamhain, 2003; Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt, 2001; Salerno et al., 2015) (Gupta, 2011)

X X

X

(Bernstein, Kissinger, & Kirksey, 1998)

X


Management

Results of workshops

X

23

(Continued)

Categories

24

Appendix 1.

Continued. Process areas (PA) and best practices (BP)

Sources Authors (Heifetz, Linsky, & Grashow, 2009; Salerno et al., 2015) (Gupta, 2011; Judge, 2001)

X X

(Heising, 2012) (Florida & Goodnight, 2005) (Carayannis & Coleman, 2005)

X X X

(Kristensson, Magnusson, & Matthing, 2002)

X

(Brem & Voigt, 2009) (Jarvis, 2011; Thomke, 1998)

X X

(Pisano, 1996; Thomke, 1998)

X

(Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007) (Brem & Voigt, 2009; Nemery, Ishizaka, Camargo, & Morel, 2012) PM.BP1. Organize projects in small teams, and short term (Gupta, 2011; Jarvis, 2011) PM.BP2. Manage uncertainty and creativity (Brattström, Löfsten, & Richtnér, 2012) PM.BP3. Team composition (blend of experience and (R.B. Cooper, 2000) competencies) PA. Market launch (ML) (R.G. Cooper, 1993; Gupta, 2011; M.J.C. Martin, 1994; Tabarrok, 2011) ML.BP1. Choose the most appropriate strategy to launch the product/service

X X X X X X X

A. Achi et al.

IG.BP4. New ideas are encouraged IG.BP5. Accelerate the process of decision making/speed of decision making IG.BP6. Portfolio management (ideas, projects) IG.BP7. Stimulate the creativity of collaborators IG.BP8. Using tools and techniques designed to promote creativity IG.BP9. User involvement as soon as possible in the innovation process PA. Demonstration and Evaluation (DE) DE.BP1. Encourage experimentation/prototyping (people are ready to experiment and learn) DE.BP2. Evaluate the ideas with panel from different specialists DE.BP3. Idea selection PA. Project management (PM)


Support

HC.BP4. Develop inside innovation competency PA. Culture of innovation (CI) CI.BP1. Create an atmosphere of trust in the organization CI.BP2. Commitment and trust with partners CI.BP3. Network organization for exploiting connections, collaborations and partnerships CI.BP4. Information is widely available and the process is transparent CI.BP5. Risk taking/mistake handling CI.BP6. Motivating innovative behaviour CI.BP7. Allow time for collaborators to innovate/time off to innovate PA. Technology watch and business scanning (TW&BS) TW&BS.BP1. Identify and anticipate market trends TW&BS.BP2. Market monitoring TW&BS.BP3. Monitoring the technological

-

X

-

X X

(Leiponen, 2005; Nemery et al., 2012; OECD, 2011) (Anderson & West, 1998; Tidd & Bessant, 2009) (Akgün, Byrne, Keskin, & Lynn, 2006; Akgün, Byrne, Keskin, Lynn, & Imamoglu, 2005, Nevo & Wand, 2005) (Ahls, 2001; Gupta, 2011; Hausman, 2005; Lee, Wong, & Chong, 2005) (Gupta, 2011) (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Gupta, 2011; Toole, Hallowell, & Chinowsky, 2013) (Brattström et al., 2012) (Cullen, Johnson, & Sakano, 2000; Kauser & Shaw, 2004) (Pisano & Verganti, 2008; Zeng, Xie, & Tam, 2010)

X X X

(Peters & Waterman, 2004)

X

(Ekvall, 1996; Martins & Terblanche, 2003; O’Connor, 2008; Toole et al., 2013) (Hartmann, 2006) (Baldwin, 2012; Gallagher, 2011)

X

(Choo, 2001; ISACA, 2012; Tambe, Hitt, & Brynjolfsson, 2012) (OECD, 2004) (M.J.C. Martin, 1994) (M.J.C. Martin, 1994; Salerno et al., 2015)

X X X X X X

X X


ML.BP2. Prepare/anticipate the ecosystem at launch innovation ML.BP3. Provide sales tools, train and support sales team ML.BP4. Establish organizational process for ongoing post-launch (gather feedback, update, etc.) PA. Human capital (HC) HC.BP1. Climate for innovation HC.BP2. Easy system to identify specialists with their names and areas of expertise HC.BP3. Training and education

X X X X

25

(Continued)

26

Appendix 1. Categories

Continued. Process areas (PA) and best practices (BP)

Sources Authors

KM.BP1. Sharing knowledge KM.BP2. Integrating the knowledge of partners KM.BP3. Exploit and develop internal and external ideas (universities, clients, suppliers, competitors, other firms) KM.BP4. Knowledge creation processes KM.BP5. Organizational learning KM.BP6. Explore new knowledge inside and outside the firm

(Dhondt, 2003; Salerno et al., 2015)

X

(Boland, Lyytinen, & Yoo, 2007)

X

(R.G. Cooper, 2011; Franke & Hippel, 2003)

X

(Carneiro, 2000; Du Plessis, 2007; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Pavlou & El Sawy, 2006; Yang, Zhang, & Ding, 2015) (Bernstein et al., 1998; Lin, 2007) (Cavusgil, Calantone, & Zhao, 2003; Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2009) (Chesbrough, 2003; Hartono, 2015; Krishnan & Jha, 2011; Wallin & Krogh, 2010) (Esterhuizen et al., 2012; Samaddar & Kadiyala, 2006) (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Arrow, 1962; Gupta, 2011; March, 1991) (Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2009)

X

X X X X X X

A. Achi et al.

TW&BS.BP4. Relationship with clients should be built throughout the innovation process TW&BS.BP5. Watch in response to market and technology developments TW&BS.BP6. Using understandings of customers’ business domain to drive innovation/user driven/client orientation PA. Knowledge management (KM)


Appendix 2:

Qualitative interview guide.

Qualitative interview guide


Introduction The research project is first presented by the researcher. Then the IT innovation manager of the company presents the company and its units. Afterwards the researcher specifies the concepts of innovation and maturity model (What is innovation? What are the different forms of innovation? What is a maturity model, and why use it?). Innovation strategy and IS governance practices What is the place of innovation in your business strategy? Do you have an innovation strategy? How important are IS in your innovation strategy/ innovation processes? What are your current strategic priorities for innovation? In your opinion, does the IT management sponsor innovation and promote creative and innovative practices? Does your company use IS to obtain a competitive advantage? In your business, what are currently the IS priorities? Is your strategy/approach to innovation communicated to all collaborators? Organizational practices of innovation engineering process What is the unit that brings innovation within the company? What type of organization has your company set up to lead the innovation process? Do you have an IS/IT innovation unit? Do you have a clearly formalized innovation process? In your opinion, does your company have a close enough relationship with customers to enable a strong ability to anticipate their needs and innovation in products/services? Do your processes depend/rely on your ecosystem (customers, suppliers, competitors, communities, experts, universities)? In your company, is it important that the innovation teams are composed mainly by: the IT staff, people with business skills and/or multidisciplinary skills? Do you have a unit dedicated to innovation within the IT department? Are your managerial practices adapted to innovation (delay in decision-making, autonomy, etc.)? What techniques and tools do you use to innovate? How do you assess your innovation projects? Is your innovation process based on control within the boundaries of the enterprise from the emergence of the idea to market launch, or do you favor openness? Have you done anything that is innovative? Over the past four years, has your IT unit worked on innovation issues? What is the average number of ideas generated/innovation projects launched every year? What were your innovations over the last four years? What is the number of employees working on innovation projects or the total man-days per year? Knowledge management practices Does your management encourage the sharing of knowledge? Do you have a knowledge management process? Do you use that knowledge to innovate? Do you combine internal and external ideas to innovate? Do you promote your internal ideas outside the company? Do you use crowdsourcing to produce knowledge or innovate? Has your company or IT unit developed practices/tools to promote knowledge sharing? (Continued)

27

28

Appendix 2:

Continued.

Qualitative interview guide

A. Achi et al.

Human capital management practices Does your company implement devices for employees to learn, train and develop their skills to innovate? How do you judge the mood of your teams? Do you assess the contributions of employees on innovation? Do you have a compensation system to motivate employees to propose creative ideas? How do you staff your innovation teams within your company? In your opinion, does your company ensure that the internal environment encourages intellectual curiosity and motivation of employees? Culture of innovation practices Do you think your company encourages employees to experiment with new ideas? In your opinion, does your company tolerate risk taking? Does your company encourage innovation initiatives even if that results in failure or errors? Does your company give you the freedom to use some of your time to develop creative ideas? Is your corporate culture based on continuous improvement and ambition? Do you think there is a synergy between the culture of innovation and your company’s cultural model? Technology watch and business scanning practices Do you think the objectives of technological and business intelligence are clearly defined? Does your organization continuously/regularly watch technological/innovation trends to identify opportunities and threats? Is your IT department responsible for the technological intelligence within your company? Do you organize joint discussions with business on the development of ICT-business processes for new products/services offerings?