Enterprise Innovation Maturity Evaluation Grid Canvas

Innovation Maturity Evaluation


The enterprise internal maturity canvas, scoring grid provides a visual representation for the overall enterprise innovation capability audit pillars in a single canvas....The result will indicate an overall average status of the enterprise innovation capability audit in a single view by which you can be guided to the proper and suitable internal innovation strategy design.


  • Represent the audit result in a visual consolidated view
  • Consolidated understanding for the enterprise innovation readiness and capabilities
  • Identification of the current gaps and points of improvement
  • Summarizing the enterprise innovation audit finding

How to Use

For each sub pillar based on your designed detailed questionnaire answers you will mark the sub pillar result which will range from 1 to 4. ... Then for each main pillar you will calculate the average of the sub pillars and mark the scale, then the score of each main pillar is the result of the average of the related sub pillars scales. For each category, you will calculate the average of its related main pillars and mark the scale accordingly. The evaluation grid score card design is to standardize the scale definition of each sub-pillar. Each sub-pillar scale will have a clear definition to be used during the audit process. This can be considered as the predefined questionnaire to be used by the auditor. The evaluation grid score card is customizable and can be tailored based on the requirements, needs, enterprise nature and target context. The context of the audit and its objectives can different from an organization to another. Service based organizations will need a customization which will be different than manufacturing based enterprise. Also within the same organization different business entities may require different version of the evaluation score card, offshore and global delivery centers may have different nature, even different definitions (for example the definition of customers for the offshore centers may refer to the internal business units requesting the assignments to be done which will be different than a front office which define customers as the ones requesting and paying for the product and service). Based on this assumptions, in many cases the evaluation grid score card design may need customization even in the same organization entities. While designing the evaluation grid score card, the audit implication for each pillar and sub-pillar mentioned in theEnterprise Innovation Maturity Canvasmust be considered and followed especially while applying the needed customization. Below proposed evaluation grid score card is illustrating just an example designed for high tech service based organization.


Below each sub-pillar the score card will be arranged from scale 1 to 4. 1 Being unsatisfactory and 4 being the most satisfactory

Enterprise Maturity Evaluation Grid Score Card

New Concept Generation• Ad hoc development of new product concept• Limited customer contact
• Product concept developed internally within single function
• Idea is internally based
• New product concept sought in the marketplace and research into customer needs
• Involvement of marketing and technical functions in developing and screening new product concepts.
• Direct long term relation with customers to get feedback and identify needs
• Continues screening of opportunities and new trends
• Clear Communication strategy to get different team feedback especially teams working with customers
Innovation Planning• No planning• Planning for next generation• Planning for up to two generation• Long-term planning for three generation
• Market driven innovation planning
Inventiveness & Creativity• The business environment discourages creativity• New ideas are encouraged, but risk-taking is avoided• Risk-taking to implement new ideas is encouraged• Innovative and entrepreneurial behavior is rewarded.
• Resources are available to fund unplanned activities.
Teamwork & Organization• No teamwork and little communication exist between areas of functional expertise.• Some use of functional expertise or functionally-based teams, but no project discipline or involvement of other functions.• Limited use of multi-functional teams. These project teams are disciplined and review progress.• Widespread use of multi-functional teams with early involvement by all. Strong team leadership with teams empowered to make decisions.
Process of Innovation• Not actively seeking new technology to support business processes.• No manufacturing, service or business process strategy.
• Process technology bought off-the-shelf and installed without customization.
• Often the technology drives the process.
• Business strategies ensure that process capabilities support market or customer needs.
• Investment made in improving and developing systems and technologies.
• Strong links between product, service and process development.
• Technology remains current with new processes.
Market Focus• Absence of Market Analysis
• Absence competitors information
• No market channels
• Adhoc consumer interaction and consideration
• Adhoc competitor information
• Weak distribution channels
• No marketing activities
• Knowing consumer needs
• Knowledge about competitors
• Existence of distribution channels
• Adhoc marketing activities
• Detailed market analysis and clear consumer needs
• Detailed competitive analysis and product competitive edge.
• Well established market channels and distribution.
• Professional marketing plan and communication
Climate for Innovation• Short-term financial viability and the avoidance of risk are encouraged at the expense of innovation.• General encouragement for innovation, but little or no measurement or reward for it.• Innovation is customer-driven.
• Performance measures for innovation are reviewed regularly at the most senior business level.
• Management encourages and rewards risk-taking and new ideas.
• Everyone in the business understands how technology and service development drive innovation
Goals for Innovation• Little or no management involvement in innovation.• No innovation goals.
• The value of innovation is not represented at the most senior business level.
• Innovation and technology capability seen as a means of gaining competitive edge and/or improving services.• Explicit and challenging goals are set for innovation with an understanding of how it can shape strategy over the long term.
Human Capital Allocation• No human resource planning for innovation; key innovation skills are missing from the business.• The human resources needed for innovation are generally known and available, but slow to be accessed and applied.• The skills required for innovation are identified and are fully resourced through recruitment and training.• The business grows innovation competency through on-going skill and career development in all functional areas.
Funding•Status quo budget process, i.e., no new thinking or fundamental changes from last year.• Industry average levels are the baseline, with product/service development and training budgets subject to sharp fluctuations from year to year.• Policies in place on how product/service development and training should be funded.
• Efforts to ensure that capacity for this is available from suppliers and external support functions.
• Financial resources are related to the potential contribution that product/service development and training can make to the business over the short- and long-term, with minimal fluctuations despite cash flow variations.
Systems• Limited use of information or communication systems.• The primary use of information and communication systems is within specific functional areas.• There is widespread use of information and communication systems, but primarily for one-way information flow internally.
• Few systems link with suppliers and customers.
• Systems are geared to improving business process, service development and delivery and to shortening delivery times.
• Systems for both internal and external collaboration are in place.
Tools• No significant usage of business or process management tools.• Ad hoc tool usage, with no clear objectives.• Some use of tools to improve products, service and process effectiveness and innovation.• Widespread use of appropriate tools to capture customer needs and ensure the effectiveness of products, services and process design.
Quality Assurance• Ad hoc quality management.• Quality control in some parts of the business with little involvement from other functions.• Practices and procedures in place for quality assurance of products, services and processes.• A culture of continuous quality improvement across the entire business with a focus on achieving improved innovation performance.
Technology Monitoring• No systematic means for Internal & External Environment Competitive Analysis and Monitoring• Narrative identification of Core Competencies
• Absence of Core Competency Continues Improvement Plans
• Absence of formal systematic Monitoring for external & internal environment
• Systematic Analysis for both external and internal environments in place
• Formal identification of core competency
• Absence of core competency improvement plans
• Technology acquisition and core competency strategies are not integrated with Corporate business strategy.
• Continues systematic monitoring for both internal and external environments.
• Core competency continues improvement plans.
• Technology road map are in place considering future disruptive technologies
• Technology strategy and business strategy are integrated serving each other.
Technology Strategy• Absence of Technology acquisition strategy
• No process for R&D projects identification in place
• No Evaluation Mechanism in place
• Technology Acquisition sources are identified
• Quantitative Evaluation for R&D projects are in place
• Favoring Communication with other teams with no formal channels in place
• R&D issues are identified using formal procedure
• R&D projects selection procedure is in place
• Technology strategy is not formally deigned
• Communication channels are in place
• Distinctive technologies are identified and acquisition strategy is in place
• Technology acquisition is linked to business strategy
• Continues qualitative and quantitative measures are in place
• Communication are encouraged and formal channels are defined
Management of IP• Absence of IP Strategy and process.• IP is encouraged but with no formal process nor funds• IP is encouraged
• Formal IP process is in place
• Required funds are available
• Absence of IP strategy
• IP generation is not linked to Organization strategy
• IP strategy is in place serving organization objectives
• IP process and funds are in place