International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.

2, May 2011

AN APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING

CONCEPT OF INNOVATION READINESS
LEVELS

Ming-Chang Lee1, To Chang 2 , and Wen-Tien Chang Chien3

1
Department of Business Administration, National Kaohsiung University of Applied
Science, Taiwan
ming_li@mail2000.com.tw
2
Department of Information Management, Shu-Te University, Taiwan
changt@mail.stu.edu.tw
3
Department of Information Management, Fooyin University ,Taiwan
sc102@mail.fy.edu.tw

ABSTRACT

Innovation maturity has gathered great importance in recent years. Innovation has become a major
driving force for business growth and success. However, many challenges still remain in both theory and
practice, which demand improved managerial approach. This research focuses on developing the concept
of innovation readiness levels, an explicit model for managing the process of incremental innovation and
to provide contractors and construction business to improve an innovation program. The research
reported here set out to examine how technological, market and other aspects of innovation readiness can
be depicted over the lifecycle and to provide the Innovation Readiness Levels (IRL) framework. Practical
issues and challenges were discussed with all companies.

KEYWORDS

Innovation Readiness Levels; Innovation on product life cycle; Innovation management; Technology
Readiness Level; System Readiness Level

1. INTRODUCTION

There has been an increasing interest in innovation capabilities (see for example [2], [11]).
While all seem to agree that innovation could be recognized as a key success factors in an
increasingly competitive, global economy. However, successful and sustained innovation
presents challenges rooted in technological uncertainties, ambiguous market signals and
embryonic competitive structure [6]. Some scholars have argued that the successful
innovation is highly dependent on how the systematic that organizations use to develop new and
improved products, services, production systems and businesses process [33].
DOI : 10.5121/ijmit.2011.3203 18
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

For example, [26], [27], [31] believes that innovation readiness level intended to help
implement innovation over the lifecycle more effectively. Other researchers, such as The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA,[20]), argues that “Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) metric to assess the risk associated with technology development”.
The study developed innovation maturity level to enterprises in order to help implement
innovation over the lifecycle more effectively. It is also expected to apply as a management
tool.

Recent innovation management research has suggested that innovation capability may indeed
facilitate processes beneficial to readiness level developing. These specific benefits include
improved all company innovation work processes [14], [30], provided an overview of the
relative maturity and assess their relevance to the company [13]. Forsman et al [11] draws a
common framework for assessing how regional development efforts meet the needs of
innovation development in small enterprises. Akman and Yilmaz [1] provided extensive
discussion of the important factors the influence mostly innovation capability of firms, such as
market orientation, technological orientation and innovation strategy. A comprehensive
understanding of lifecycle of innovation can include two phases: technological development and
market evolution. Some existing theories on the process of innovation, TRL [18] provide
guidance for managing the technological phase. System Readiness Level (SRL) [25], the
market adoption model [19], Diffusion of Innovation Theory [23], and product life cycle of
innovation [3] are process patterns rather than management approaches; they illustrate and help
to understanding the phase of market evolution. Therefore, these theories are considered
useful when developing a comprehensive lifecycle of innovation, as part of the conceptual
framework of this research.

Most of the previous studies on innovation maturity described a technology maturity and system
development maturity. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA, [20])
instituted a seven level Technology Readiness Level (TRL) metric to assess the risk associated
with technology development. The Department of Defense (DoD) began implementing the
TRL as a metric to assess the maturity of a program’s technologies before its system
development begins [8], [9]. The mission for technology-based companies is to bring
technology to market successfully. It is crucial that this process is run effectively with market
and organizational risks [6]. In the process on managing innovation, TRL provides a checklist
of key activities for managing the technological development phase. Hence, there may be
scope for considering innovation as a multi-aspect process, in which not only technology,
market and organization but also other key aspects are taken into account more explicitly
19
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

through the lifecycle.

TRL are useful methods for measuring technology readiness, they fail to account for negative
aspects that immature technologies can introduce to system. Consequently, despite the utility
and value of the TRL as a metric for determining technology maturity before transitioning into a
system, we content that TRLs were not intended to address system integration or to indicate that
the technology will result in successful development of a system [16], [17]. It is our premise
that IRL is not an end state to determining a system’s readiness based on: [24]

• TRL is only a measure of an individual technology and not systems readiness;

• There is no method for integrating TRLs; and
• There is no proven, tested, systematic index of systems readiness

The System Readiness Level (SRL) is an index of maturity applied at the system-level concept
with objective of correlating this indexing to appropriate system engineering management
principles [28]. The UK MoD [29] has introduced System Readiness Level (SRL) to assess
system maturity. The SRL we will describe and demonstrate is a function and scale that
incorporates the current TRL scale along with a scale of integration. The combination for
utilization of the SRL we content aids in making strategic decision during defense acquisition.
Technology and systems development follow similar evolution (or maturation) paths, a
technology is inserted into a system based on maturity, functionality, environmental readiness,
and ability to integrate into the intended system. However, many of factors that may determine
the successful development of a system into its operational environment are not always
effectively implemented during the developmental lifecycle [21]. As shown in the above
literature review, existing research in TRL and SRL has ignored the role of the management of
innovation. Hence, in order to help fill this gap in our knowledge, this study developed an
explicit model which can be used as a tool for managing the process.

The purpose of the study reported here was to explore how technological, market and other
associated aspects of innovation readiness can be depicted over the lifecycle and to provide the
Innovation Readiness Level (IRL) framework as a tool for managers to position themselves and
take into account key elements relating to innovation. The specific aims in this study are (a)
To develop a generic readiness model that can be abstracted and applied to managing the
process of innovation in industry and (b) To establish generic activities for each phase of the
innovation lifecycle [32].

20
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

In summary, this research intended to address the management of the process of innovation by
explicitly considering the five key aspects of innovation: technology, market, organization,
partnership and risk, through the full lifecycle of innovation. The paper begins, on section 2,
research design, using case study approach to gain an in-depth and holistic understanding of
innovation maturity. Next, on section 3, some existing theories on the process of innovation
are done. On section 4, the comparison of background information for the four case studies in
this research, developing the framework of IRL. Finally, on section 5, conclusions and future
work are presented.

2. RESEACH DESIGN

The research was designed to achieve these aims: (1) developing a generic readiness model that
can be applied to managing the process of innovation in industry (2) establishing generic
activities and criteria for each phase of the innovation lifecycle. This study employed a
qualitative case study approach to gain an in-depth and holistic understanding of innovation
maturity.

2.1 METHODOLOGY

Step 1: Literature Review

This research procedure is doing from some existing innovation theories stress the technological
development, such as Technology Readiness Levels [18], System Readiness Levels; while
others concentrate on market evaluation, such as the theory of Diffusion of Innovation [23],
Market Adoption Model [19] and Product Lifecycle [3].

Step 2: Interviewing (practice) review

Further cases studies were then conducted with leading companies in various industrial sectors,
in order to develop and refine the conceptual framework of IRL. The objective in selecting the
research subjects is to choose appropriate companies that would allow generalization of the
finding. The companies that have participated in this research are outlined in Table 1.

21
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

Table 1. The comparison of background information

A B C D
Established year 1992 2005 1997 1996
Industry attribute EDA tools Web and blog IC design IC design
and IP design
provider
Location Taiwan, Taiwan Taiwan ,China
Taiwan, China
China and USA
Domestic/multinational Multinational Domestic Multinational Multinational
Employees 22 12 to 22 98 80
Capitals NT$60million NT$10million NT$307million NT$3000million
Products EDA tools Blog and IC design IC Design
and IP websites products: product: high
Micro Control performance
Unit (MCU) application
and Digital specific memory
Signal and video
Proceeding processing
circuits.
Source from: Chen [5]
Step 3: Emerging framework
The framework of IRL is six ‘C” model, which separates the comprehensive life cycle of
innovation into six phases (readiness levels), and addresses the management of process of
innovation by considering five key aspects which are defined below. The purpose of defining
these terms is to provide a precise understanding in context of this research. Based on the
discussion above, the key literature reviewed that relates to lifecycle models is mapped onto the
conceptual framework of IRL, presenting an overview of existing literature (Table 2)

Table 2. Mapping literature on IRL framework

Technological development Market evolution

Phas IRL 1 IRL2 IRL 3 IRL 4 IRL 5 IRL 6
e Concept Components Completion Chasm Competition Changeover/
Closedown
Aspects
Technology TRL [18]
SRL [25]
Market Diffusion of Innovation Theory [23]
Market Adoption Model [19]
Product Life Cycle of Innovation [3]
Organization Key activities [15].
Partnership
Risk

Step 4: Content analysis and Refine framework

22
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

3. SOME EXISTING THEORIES ON THE PROCESS OF

INNOVATION

3.1 THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

The Product life cycle, as Figure 1 portrays, can be described by an S-curve. From the
perspective of profit with respect to time, the curve can generally be classified into four stages
as follows:
(1) Market introduction: The market introduction of products begins when a new and innovative
product passes quality and function tests, and is introduced to customers. No products already
in the market share the functions or appearance of the product, and thus the market is
uncontested.
(2) Growth: When the innovative products are marketed and gradually approved by customers,
profits also increase. If the products have superior functions and technology to existing
products, and if this superiority is confirmed by market testing and use, the products and their
corresponding technologies will replace existing products. However, if customers do not
appreciate the innovations, the products will quickly vanish from the market. When a product
is successful, more and more enterprises will begin to develop similar products and technology.
Meanwhile, the original enterprises, which have been involved in researching such products
since their beginnings, will seek to constantly improve their products according to the
requirements of customers to enhance their competitiveness.
(3) Maturity: Reliability and quality of products peak during this period. Enterprises also profit
enormously, but profit growth begins to slow. A few brands of products dominate the market.
(4) Decline: A new generation of products appears. Most enterprises’ products lose their
competitiveness since the appearance of mainstream brands. Price competition characterizes this
period. Key issues and activities are denotes as Table 3.

Table 3. key issues and activities of product life cycle

Time Market introduction Growth Maturity: Decline:

Key Establish customer Supply Margin Replacements
issues need Feast/Famine erosion
Activities -Launch -Standardization -Cost -Declining
-Promotion/marketing -Process reduction cash
-Model improvement improvement -Economy -Exit plan
-Cash neutral -Reinvestment of scale
-Cash -Novel
generating variations
-Cast
generating
23
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

3.2 SYSTEM READINESS LEVEL

System Readiness level (SRL) will be defined by the current state of development of a system
in relation to the United States Department of Defense’s (DoD) Phases of Development for the
Life Cycle Management Framework [8]. SRL has five phases (readiness level): (1) concept
refinement, (2) technology development, (3) system development & demonstration, (4)
production & development (5) operation & support.

The definition of SRL is denoted as:

SRL 5: Operations and Support: Execute a support program that meets operational support
performance requirements and sustains the system in the most cost-effective manor over its
total life cycle.
SRL 4: Production and Development: Achieve operational capability that satisfies mission needs
SRL 3: System Development and Demonstration: Develop a system or increment of capability;
reduce integration and manufacturing risk; ensure operational supportability; reduce
logistics footprint; implement human systems integration; design for reducibility; ensure
affordability and production of critical program information; and demonstrate system
integration, interoperability, safety, and utility.
SRL 2: Technology Development: Reduce technology risks and determine appropriate set of
technologies to integrate into full system
SRL 1: Concept Refinement: Refine initial concept. Develop system/technology development
strategy.

Volume & Units

Maturity
Growth Decline
Product
Development
Introduction
Sales

Profits

Time
0

Figure 1. Product life cycle [3]

Rogers' suggests a total of five categories of adopters in order to standardize the usage of
adopter categories in diffusion research. It should be noted that the adoption of an innovation
24
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

follows an S curve when plotted over a length of time. The categories of adopters are:
innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards
Innovators: Innovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation. Innovators are willing
to take risks, youngest in age, have the highest social class, have great financial lucidity,
very social and have closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other
innovators. Risk tolerance has them adopting technologies which may ultimately fail.
Financial resources help absorb these failures.
Early Adopters: This is second fastest category of individuals who adopt an innovation. These
individuals have the highest degree of opinion leadership among the other adopter
categories. Early adopters are typically younger in age, have a higher social status, have
more financial lucidity, advanced education, and are more socially forward than late
adopters. Realize judicious choice of adoption will help them maintain central
communication position
Early Majority: Individuals in this category adopt an innovation after a varying degree of time.
This time of adoption is significantly longer than the innovators and early adopters. Early
Majority tend to be slower in the adoption process, have above average social status,
contact with early adopters, and show some opinion leadership in a system.
Late Majority: Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after the average member
of the society. These individuals approach an innovation with a high degree of skepticism
and the majority of society has to have adopted the innovation. Late Majority are typically
skeptical about an innovation, have below average social status, very little financial lucidity,
in contact with others in late majority and early majority, very little opinion leadership.
Laggards: Individuals in this category are the last to adopt an innovation. Unlike some of the
previous categories, individuals in this category show little to no opinion leadership. These
individuals typically have an aversion to change-agents and tend to be advanced in age.
Laggards typically tend to be focused on “traditions”, have lowest social status, lowest
financial fluidity, oldest of all other adopters, in contact with only family and close friends,
very little to no opinion leadership. The diffusion process is showed as Figure 2.

These categories follow a standard deviation-curve, very little innovators adopt the innovation
in the beginning (2,5%), early adopters making up for 13,5% a short time later, the early
majority 34%, the late majority 34% and after some time finally the laggards make up for 16%

25
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

% of total market Late

Early
Early Majority
Majority Laggards
Adopters 34%
34% 34%
13.5%
Innovators Moore’s
2.5% Chasm

Techies’ Vicinages Pragmatists Conservatives Sceptics

Time

Figure 2. Diffusion Process (Source from: [23])

3.4. MARKET ADOPTION MODEL

The Lifecycle model suggests that market adoption reflects a ball curve that tracks to
customer/customer adoption of a new technology, product service. The “early adopters” are
interested in testing out and trying something new. After the early adopters targeted market
beachheads that represent segments with specific needs that become reference points for other
segments. The technology then moves from customer solutions for specific segments to mass
manufacturing and distribution of standardized products for the mass market. From there, the
market matures. This is when late adopters who are adverse to “risk” begin purchasing the
tried and true solutions. Competitiveness becomes almost entirely based on incremental
improvements and economies of sale.

3.5. TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVEL

Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is a measure used by some United States government
agencies and many of the world's major companies (and agencies) to assess the maturity of
evolving technologies (materials, components, devices, etc.) prior to incorporating that
technology into a system or subsystem. The most common definitions are those used by the
Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
TRL were originally developed by NASA in the 1980s. The original definitions only included
seven levels. These were later expanded to nine levels.

26
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

Figure 3: Market Adoption Model (Source: [19]).

The primary purpose of using Technology Readiness Levels is to help management in making
decisions concerning the development and transitioning of technology (Source: [7]), Defense
Acquisition Guidebook).

TRL 1: Basic principles observed and reported

TRL 2: Technology concept and/or application formulated
TRL 3: Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept
TRL 4: Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment
TRL 5: Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment
TRL 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment
TRL 7: System prototype demonstration in an operational environment
TRL 8: Actual system completed and ‘flight qualified’ through test and demonstration
TRL 9: Actual system ‘flight proven’ through successful mission operations

4. DEVELOPING FRAMEWORK OF INNOVATION READINESS

LEVELS (IRL)

4.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Based on the above discussion and the thinking of [27], the conceptual framework of IRL is
proposed. The framework is six ‘C” model, which separates the comprehensive life cycle of
innovation into six phases (readiness levels), and addresses the management of process of
innovation by considering five key aspects which are defined below (see Table 1).
(1) Defining the key aspects considered in IRL:
(a) Technology: Technology is the process by which humans modify nature to meet their needs
and wants. Technology defines as the ways and means by which humans produce
27
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

purposeful material artifacts and effects [2]. It thinks of technology in terms of its
artifacts, such as computers and software, mobile phones, automobiles, aircraft, and
medical devices. But technology is more than these tangible products. It includes the
entire infrastructure and knowledge necessary for the design, manufacture, operation, and
repair of technological artifacts, from corporate headquarters and engineering schools to
manufacturing plants and maintenance facilities.
(b) Market: Marketing has the core strategic responsibility for the customer-supplier
relationship. The term market refers to the groups of consumers or organizations that are
interested in innovative technology or the product, have the resources to purchase the
product, and are permitted by law and other regulations to acquire the product [10], [22]).
(c) Organization: Organization provides a systematic and consistent measure of the organization
maturity of a firm required to develop a technology to the necessary level of technology
maturity. It actually refers to the parts of organization(s) involved in the process of
innovation, whose goal is to implement the innovation, to generate specific services and/or to
produce goods throughout the lifecycle.
(d) Partnership: A partnership is a type of business entity in which partners (owners) share with
each other the profits or losses of the business. Examples of partners include suppliers,
resellers, and research partners.
(e) Risk: The ways of assessing of addressing risks must come high on the list of techniques for
managing innovation projects [12]. Risk refers to a combined concept that denotes a
potential negative impact on innovation at the business level. In the management of the
process of innovation, this concept integrates technological, market and organizational
risks [10], which are considered or assessed in certain levels of IRL.

(2) Defining the phases of IRL: [10].

(a) Concept: Basic scientific principles of the innovation have been observed and reported,
and the critical functions and/or characteristics have been confirmed through
experiments (equivalent to TRL 1-3).
(b) Components: Components have been developed and validated, and a prototype has been
developed to demonstrate the technology (equivalent to TRL 4-6).
(c) Completion: Technological development has been completed and the complete system
functionality has proven in the field (equivalent to TRL 7-9).
(d) Chasm: The term chasm here is broader than Moore’s definition (1999): “the chasm
between the early adopters of high technology and the product (the enthusiasts and
visionaries) and the early majority (the pragmatists)”. Chasm in the IRL framework
28
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

refers to the challenges and difficulties that innovation may encounter when first
introduced to market (early stage).
(e) Competition: This is the mature phase of the market, when it has reached a state of
equilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation (adapted from
[19]). The main mission in this phase is to maintain and enhance the position of
innovation and to cope with competition.
(f) Changeover/Closedown: These are the two options in the declining stage of the market.
Changeover refers to the re-innovation of technology, inaugurating new markets,
transformation of the business model, and corporate re-invention, in order to seek and
develop competitive advantage. On the other hand, closedown means the innovation
has come to obsolescence and exits.

4.1 CASE STUDIES

The innovation supply chain is a methodology used to efficiently integrate suppliers and
research-intensive organizations to ensure materials and information are made accessible and
distributed in the right quantities, to the right locations, at the right time. In order to speed up
the process of innovation, reduce costs and improve quality. Table 1 shows the comparison of
background information for the four case studies in this research. From the table we can see that
only B Crop is the start-up firm, the other firms were established ten or more than ten years ago.
A Corp is the supplier for IC design industries such as C and D Corp is the web and blog Design
Company; it can provide any industry with innovative products, process and services via web
and blog technology. Only B Corp is based on Tainan, the other firms are all multinational
corporations. A and B Corp small high-tech small and medium-size enterprise regularly
employing under 22 works, while C and D Corp each employ 80 to 100 works. The current
investment capitals for A and B are 10-60 million, for C and D they are about 300 million.
The main products for A Corp are FDA tools and IP, for B they are web and blog products, for
C and D they are design products.

1. A CORP- EDA TOOLS AND IP PROVIDER

A Corp efficiently integrates suppliers and customers to ensure products and information are
made accessible and distributed at the right qualities, to the right locations, at the right time, in
order to speed the process of information reduce costs and innovation quality.

A Corp provides a framework for a seamless, streamlined approach to planning, sourcing and
delivering products. It introduces intellectual capital (that is IP), information management (Web
technology) and regulatory compliance (commitment to customers and employee) into the
29
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

traditional supply chain methodology. A Corp involves full co-operation between suppliers,
R&D, designer /engineers, marketers, distributors and customers in practice. It focus on
developing, using, maintaining and extending the enabling determinants for effective
implementation mechanisms and structures, effective external linkages, strategic approaches to
innovation, and supporting organizational context for the innovation process.

2. B CORP—WEB AND BLOG DESIGN

B Corp helped itself and other firms to establish a virtual industry through its innovation supply
chain solution. Corp B is seeking possibilities to establish a formal process for management
technological innovation with the following functions:

(1)R&D: Through web platform to provide “production website” with capability of speed, large
volume and low cost; the blog of B Corp is the website component platform with the
greatest sale and depth, it can dynamically decompose and construct a whole website and
provide cross-website copy capabilities of the whole website.
(2) Design: It provides the design platform of the website DNA version; there is no need to
revise the program, it quickly provides ten thousand website versions due to its industrial
characteristics, and provides upgrading capability of dynamic website DNA; it can
dynamically upgrade the mechanism function of website in real time.
(3) Marketing: The innovation of marketing strategy of B Corp was”4P1S” as follows: 1P
(promotion) is scenario marketing - integrative scenario push-force, consumer-experienced
pull-force. 2P (Price) collaborative website: The pricing strategy is a collaborative website
of “pricing value” but not pure pricing. The on-line platform provides real-time and quick
response for consumers. 3P (place) virtual channel: The “place” strategy of B Corp is a
“place virtualization”. It provides quick expansion of scope, depth, and stickiness. It is
also a matrix (vertical and horizontal) connection collaboration network. 4P (product) is
wisdom workshop-information, knowledge and wisdom. 1S (SVC): consumer
experiencing- service, voice and customization. It provides the services of real time and
interaction, consumer experience opinions, personalization service needs, new market
product trends, the reliving of wisdom products.
(4) Distribution: B Corp provides the capability of marketing advertising and information
distribution which is based on a “channel supply chain”: through the platform function of
“collaboration platform”, “connection and collaboration”, “organic blog”. B Corp is able
to assist the newest mobile phone of Nokia synchronal on sale in ten thousand stores within
10 minutes.
30
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

3. C CORP-- IC DESIGN

C Corp develops a “Fables Vertical Solution” to realize the requirements of Fables Management
Automation for IC design industry. The completion of an IC product, from the design,
trial-production, to mass-production is based on the principle of industrial vertical
decentralization. These manufacturing processes are usually completed by different outsourcing
foundries. Suppliers and collaborative partners can assist the innovation process through
access to technologies, skills or information and through providing complementary expertise to
improve the speed to market of new product developments.

4. D Corp-- IC design

D Corp efficiently integrates and fully co-operates with R&D, design, manufacturing, marketing
and distribution to form a complete innovation supply chain and to ensure products and
information are made accessible and distributed at the right qualities, to the right locations, at
the right time, in order to speed the process of innovation, reduce costs and improve quality.
Detailed issues are discussed respectively:

(1) D Corp has developed an innovation supply chain consisting of R&D, design, manufacturing,
marketing and distribution with suppliers, partners, customers and distributors.
(2) D Corp provides a framework for seamless, streamlined approach to planning, sourcing and
delivering products and products. It has introduced intellectual capital, information
management (Web technology) and regulatory compliance (commitment to customers and
employees) into the traditional supply chain methodology. This is necessary, effective, and
inevitable strategy to reduce costs, focus on the core business, maintain competitiveness,
and obtain needs capabilities.
(3)The target of this borrowed strength is the upstream suppliers (such as EDA tools and IP
venders), partners (such as TSMC and UMC) and the downstream customers (such as Sony,
Phillips, and LG) and distributors (Global 28 distribution).

4.2 DEVELOPING THE FRAMEWORK OF IRL

The main output of this research is emerging framework of IRL, which is presented in Table 4.
the literature reviewed provides a theoretical base for the conceptual thinking of IRL, while the
four case studies, have conformed the feasibility of IRL and contributed to the development of
the emerging framework of IRL.

31
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

Table 4. An emerging framework of Innovation Readiness Levels (IRL)

Technological Development
IRL 1 IRL 2 IRL 3
Concept Components Completion
Technology -Basic scientific -Individual components t --Launch-Expertise
principles ested formed;
observed and -Prototypes demonstrated - IP protected
reported; -IP protected - Technology/product
-Technology documented;
feasibility -Design platform
confirmed for - Production Website
radical
innovation:
Market --Working with -End-customer identified; -Specific needs and
leading -Detailed market launch requirements of
customers; plan issued customers known
-Customer need -Intellectual capital -Market segment, size
and demand and share predicted;
observed For -Pricing & Launching
radical issued
innovation: -Information
-Locate the initial management
market
Organization -Strategy fit -Business analyzed and -Formalizing
confirmed; plan issued; organization
-Informal, loose -Key individuals -Core management
structure involved -Customer value
(mainly R&D creation
team) -Collaboration platform
Partnership -Potential -Partners selected; -Partnership formally
partners -Calibration established established
identified -Customer voice -Supplier and
collaborative patters
Risk -Technology risk -Technological risk -Technological risk
considered assessed assessed;-
-Organizational risk -Organizational risk
considered assessed
Note: Activities or criteria by literature

Activities or criteria observed from case studies

32
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

Table 4. An emerging framework of Innovation Readiness Levels (IRL) (continue)

Market Evolution
IRL 4 IRL 5 IRL 6
Chasm Competition Changeover/Closedown
Technology -General - R&D activities; -Disruptive innovation identified;
availability -Technology -Learning from experiences and
to the whole maintenance re-innovate or exit
market enabled;
-After sales -Technological
supports service provided
-Design and
facilitate
continuous
innovation
- Dynamic
Website
Market -Positioning -Differentiate -Declining market confirmed;
in the products; -Market research for approval to
market; -Provide service re-innovate or exit
-Business and solutions;
model -Business model
established; refined
-Customer-in -Use partnership
timate to compete
marketing - Marketing
(feedback); strategy
-Competitors
identified
-Use
partnership
to compete
Organization -Inter-organiz -Improved
ational effectiveness
innovations and cooperation;
organization -Organizational
-Co-operatio learning
n between
supplier and
designer
Partnership -Cooperation within dynamic -Cease partnership;
network; -(Academic partners sought )
-On-going management
Risk -Organizati Organizational risk -Consideration of the two options;
onal risk periodically -Changeover or closedown
periodicall assessed
y assessed
Note: Activities or criteria by literature

Activities or criteria observed from case studies

33
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

5. CONCLUSIONS

This paper has proposed and demonstrated the emerging framework of a new approach, “the
process of innovation and implement”, depicting the development of incremental innovation
over the life cycle. It is also expected to apply as a tool to enable companies to assess their
innovation management. Thus we provide the integration of innovation theories and
innovation process to introduce a strategic management approach towards assessing innovation
readiness as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. The innovation theories include
the product life cycle, system readiness levels, the market adoption model, and technology
readiness levels. Key activities and criteria within each phase of the lifecycle of innovation
those derived from the literature and those observed from the cases.

We provide the following recommendations for further research. (1) Create a new set of
“Capability Readiness Levels” (CRLs) to assess a measure a system for a given context in its
intended operational environment, i. e. to determine the degree of “Capability Readiness”. (2)
Design, develop and test a systematic index for “System Maturity”; and “Manufacturing
Readiness Level”.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on this paper.

REFERENCES

[1 ] Akman, G. & Yilmaz, C. (2008) Innovative capability, innovation strategy and market orientation: an
empirical analysis in Turkish software industry, International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1),
69-111.

[2 ] Alegre, J., Chiva, R., and Lapiedra, R., (2005) A literature- based innovation output analysis: implications for
innovation capacity, International Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 385-399.

[3 ] Beacham, j. (2006) succeeds through innovation: 60 minute guide to innovation, turning ideas into Profit.
http://www. berr.gov.uk/files/file34902.pdf

[4 ] Braun, E. (1998) Technology in Context: technology assessment for managers, London: Rout ledge.

[5 ] Chen , T. F., (2007) A case Study of Innovation Supply Chain in High-Tech SMEs, Journal of SME
Development, 6, pp. 105-137.

[6 ] Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. & Gunther, R. (2000) Managing Emerging Technologies, The Wharton School,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

[7 ] DoD, (1998) Levels of Information systems interoperability. Washington, DC

[8 ] DoD, (2005a) Chapter 4: Systems Engineering (DoD Directive 5000.2). Washington, DC

34
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

[9 ] DoD, (2005b), Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) desk book, DUSD(S&T), Editor, 2005, Department
of Defense.

[10 ] Doyle, P. (2002) Marketing Management and Strategy, 3rd ED, Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

[11 ] Forsman, H. (2009) Improving innovation capabilities of small enterprise: cluster strategy as a tool,
International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(2), 221-243.

[12 ] Goffin, K. & Mitchell, R., (2005) Innovation Management, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

[13 ] Golovatchev, J. , Budde, O., & Kellmereit, D. (2010) Technology and innovation radars: effective instruments
for the development of a sustainable innovation strategy and successful product launches, International Journal
of Innovation and Technology Management, 7(3), 229-236.

[14 ] Lager, T., Hallberg, D., & Eriksson, P., (2010) developing a process innovation work process: the LKAB
experience, International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 285-306.

[15 ] Lee, C. K., Tan, B., & Chiu, J. Z. (2008) The impact of organizational culture and learning on innovation
performance, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 5(4), 413-428.

[16 ] Mandelbaum, J. (2007) How the S&T community can best support the technology readiness assessment (TRA)
process do’s and don’ts. The proceedings of the Technology Maturity Conference. Virginia Beach, VA: AFRL.

[17 ] Mandelbaum, J. (2008) Technology readiness assessments for systems of systems. The proceedings of the
Technology Maturity Conference. Virginia Beach, VA: AFRL.

[18 ] Mankins, J. C. (1995) Technology Readiness Levels, A white paper, Advanced Concept Office, Office of
Space Access and Technology, NASA. http://ehbs.org/trl/Mankins1995.pdf. Retrieved 1/20/2011

[19 ] Moore, G. (1999) Crossing the chasm, Harper Business, New York.

[20 ] NASA, Mars Climate Orbiter, Mishap Investigation Board: Phase1 Report, 1999
http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/Mco_report.pdf. Retrieved 1/15/22011

[21 ] Parsons, V. S. (2006) Project performance: How to assess the early stages, Engineering Management Journal,
Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 11-15

[22 ] Perreault, W. D. (2005) Base Marketing: a Global-managerial Approach, 15th ED, London McGraw-Hill.

[23 ] Rogers, E., (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York.

[24 ] Sauser, B. Ramirez-Marquez, J. & Gove, R. (2006) From TRL to SRL: The concept of systems readiness levels.
Proceeding of Conference on System Engineering Research, Los Angeles CA:CSER

[25 ] Sauser, B. Ramirez-Marquez, J., Henry, D. & DiMarzio, D. (2008) A system maturity index for the system
engineering life cycle, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 673-691.

[26 ] Tao, L., Probert, D. & Phaal, R. (2008) Developing the concept of Innovation Readiness Levels, The 17th
IAMOT (International Association for Management of Technology), 6-10 April, Dubai, USA.

[27 ] Tao, L., Probert, D. & Phaal, R. (2010) Towards an integrated framework for managing the process of
innovation, R&D Management, 40(1), 19-30.

[28 ] Tetlay, MA. & John, P. (2009) Determining the Lines of System Maturity, System Readiness and Capability
Readiness in the System Development Lifecycle, 7th Annual Conference on System Engineering Research 2009
(CSER 2009)

[29 ] UK MoD (2004) SMART Acquisition Handbook, Edition 5, January 2004, UK Ministry of Defence.

[30 ] Adams, P. (2009) The manufacturing of marketing knowledge in the early phases of the innovation process,
International Journal of Technology Marketing, 4(2/3), 113-128

35
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

[31 ] Islam, N. (2010) Innovation manufacturing readiness levels (IMRs): a new readiness matrix, International
Journal of Nan manufacturing, 6(1/2/3/4) 362-375

[32 ] Perry, N. & Uys, W., (2010) Knowledge integration based on roadmapping and conceptual framework
approach to ease innovation management, International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology,
37(3/4), 165-181.

[33 ] Wychal, P., Mohanty, R. P. & Verma, A. (2011) Determinants of innovation as a competence: an empirical
study, International Journal of Business innovation and Research, 5(2): 192-211.

Authors

Ming-Chang Lee is Assistant Professor of Department of Information

Management at Fooyin University and National Kaohsiung University of
Applied Sciences. His qualifications include a Master degree in applied
Mathematics from National Tsing Hua University and a PhD degree in
Industrial Management from Nation Cheng Kung University. His research
interests include knowledge management, parallel computing, and data
analysis. His publications include articles in the journal of Computer &
Mathematics with Applications, International Journal of Operation Research,
Computers & Engineering, American Journal of Applied Science and Computers, Industrial Engineering,
International Journal innovation and Learning, Int. J. Services and Standards, Lecture Notes in computer
Science (LNCS), International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, Journal of
Convergence Information Technology and International Journal of Advancements in computing
Technology.

To Chang is an Assistant Professor of Department of Information

Management at Shu-Te University, Taiwan. His qualifications include Master
degree in Computer Science from Naval Postgraduate School, USA and PhD
degree in Electronic Engineering from Chung Cheng Institute of Technology,
Taiwan. His research interests include Information Security, Management
Information Systems, Information Ethics, and Enterprise Resource Planning.
His publications include articles in International Journal Innovation and
Learning, Int. J. Services and Standards, International Journal of Research and
Reviews in Computer Science, and International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security.

36
 International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol.3, No.2, May 2011

Wen-Tien Chang Chien is Assistant Professor of Department of Information

Management at Fooyin University. His qualifications include a Master degree
and PhD degree in Industrial Applied Mechanics from Nation Taiwan
University. His research interests include data analysis, solid mechanics, and
MENS. His publications include Applied Mathematics and Computation,
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computers Science, Journal of
Micromechanics and Microengineering, Japanese Journal of Applied physic
and Journal of the Electrochemical Society.

37