Innovation Technology

Report

for

CAGEWOX LIMITED
(Abuja, Nigeria)
By: Sampson-Orji COURAGE
[UoR: MISM Innovative Technologies]
August 4th, 2015

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 4
1.0 ORGANIZATION

AND INNOVATION : Introduction

of CAGEWOX Limited ..5

1.1 The Software Industry....................................................................................5

1.1.1 Global Market....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.2 Regional (African) Markets.................................................................................................. 6
1.1.3 Nigerian Market.................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Business Innovativeness................................................................................6
2.0 INNOVATIVE

CAPACITIES : Cultural and Innovation

Readiness ......................7

2.1 Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations............................................8

2.2 Innovation Implementation Process...............................................................9
Table 1: Innovation Implementation Process..........................................................................10
2.3 Implementation Factors and Measurement Metrics.....................................10
Table 2: Implementation Measurement Framework..............................................................11
Table 3: Implementation Challenges and Solutions...............................................................12
3.0 TECHNOLOGIES

ANALYSIS : Proposed

Technological

Innovations .............13

3.1 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System................................................13

3.2 Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System....................................14
3.3 Implementation Requirements.....................................................................15
4.0 INNOVATION

STRATEGY : Technology

Roadmap for CAGEWOX Limited 16

4.1 Technology Roadmap...................................................................................17

Figure 1: Technology Roadmap for CAGEWOX ltd (Years 1 4)...........................................17
4.2 Quantum Strategy Implementation..............................................................18
5.0 INNOVATIVE

TECHNOLOGY

SCENARIO : Open Innovation

Strategy .........18

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................. 20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CAGEWOX Limited is a limited liability company registered to do business in Nigeria. It provides
information technology consulting services to a few government organizations with an average of 3 I.T
projects delivered annually; 5 longstanding clients; 18 employees; and ranks among the best 20 I.T
consulting firms in the Federal Capital.
Typical with most companies, the organization's overall innovation strategy for which I.T drives in
this organization is derived from its corporate strategy whose overall aim is to increase and maintain
business and financial value through management of information technologies. So far, this has been
achieved through systems development projects for some regulatory departments and management of
same.
Despite the highly profitable global I.T industry, statistics for Middle East and Africa regions remain
unavailable a trend Mursu et al. (2000) largely attributes to contextual disparities in both socioeconomic and socio-political practice of developing and industrialized (developed) countries.
However, despite to challenges faced in the local (national) industry, CAGEWOX Ltd provides
satisfactory information systems development and consulting for its few longstanding clients and
continues to post healthy earnings after tax.
While CAGEWOX Ltd. strategy statement has a clear message, this alone cannot promote an
innovation-friendly organizational climate; strategic corporate statements influence by creating strong
perceptions capable of guiding stakeholder behavior and action even in absence of intervening action.
The strategy is clear, however certain rules and procedures do not support intrinsic, positive perception
towards innovation.
To ensure implementation success as much as possible at CAGEWOX ltd, Hussin and Huda
(2013) innovation implementation model is used to illustrate the process for introducing two necessary
information systems that play a major role in creating competitive advantage for 21 st century
organizations when made part of an overall business strategy and implemented successfully (Eras et al.,
2010).
A technology roadmap is also provided to reveal CAGEWOX ltd's innovative capabilities in relation to
current & proposed product offerings, and current & proposed innovative technologies for
forecasting, product and project planning, as well as administrative purposes, following a useful and
flexible standardization and customization approach (Lee and Park, 2005).
Also, considering the challenges faced by CAGEWOX ltd, two open innovation strategies were
proposed for adoption in an attempt to offer guidance on how best the company's existing corporate
practices can be reconfigured to embed openness to an acceptable degree that facilitates and sustains
innovation.

1.0 ORGANIZATION AND INNOVATION: Introduction of

CAGEWOX Limited
Innovation entails creating new value from existing assets and investments both tangible and
intangible to create and/or boost competitive advantage. Havard Business School (2009) provides a
more elaborate definition..., including various forms of innovation such as are rather elusive to the
innovator.
The elusive nature of innovation, and its visceral proposition to drive corporate strategy in a business
environment makes its practice appear simple in disguise. To help address this misconception, tools to
help the innovation manager determine best-fit innovation approaches have evolved (Sawhney et al.,
2006; Groenveld, 1987).
In a technology environment, the case can be made for innovation from a company perspective,
considering industry dynamics such as technology management, technology strategy, and technology
transitions (Phaal et al., 2004).
CAGEWOX Limited is a limited liability company registered to do business in Nigeria. It provides
information technology consulting services to a few government organizations with an average of 3 I.T
projects delivered annually; 5 longstanding clients; 18 employees; and ranks among the best 20 I.T
consulting firms in the Federal Capital.
There are 4 departments (Finance & Accounts, Information Technology, Human Resources, and
Marketing) in the organization, each duly overseen by a Head and represented in the management team
by same. Its management team is led by an Executive Head, also includes a Project Management staff,
and adopts a strong top-bottom management flow (Chakravarthy, 1987).
Typical with most companies, the organization's overall innovation strategy for which I.T drives in
this organization is derived from its corporate strategy whose overall aim is to increase and maintain
business and financial value through management of information technologies. So far, this has been
achieved through systems development projects for some regulatory departments and management of
same.
Available service offerings in the organization is tightly coupled with product development delivered
as a whole in information systems development projects. Major products include a document
registration and renewal management system, and an information management and control system.

1.1

The Software Industry

1.1.1 Global Market

The global software industry is a very large one segmented across various markets (PC software,
enterprise applications, I.T servicing, systems infrastructure software, operating systems, systems
software, consumer applications, et cetera) with the United States leading in market share (46%) while
Japan (7%), Germany (7%), United Kingdom (6%), France (5%), and other developed countries
altogether account for 54% (IDC, 2008).
Global spending on information technology has only increased since 2005 and in 2013, about USD 3.6

trillion had been spent, information technology services taking for 25% and enterprise applications
having 8% (Statista, 2013). These figures are expected to rise in 2014 and 2015, with the enterprise
applications segment forecast to make a giant increase by above 12%.

1.1.2 Regional (African) Markets

Despite the highly profitable global I.T industry, statistics for Middle East and Africa regions remain
unavailable a trend Mursu et al. (2000) largely attributes to contextual disparities in both socioeconomic and socio-political practice of developing and industrialized (developed) countries.
I.T spending in these regional markets reached about USD 84 billion in 2014 and is forecast to increase
by over 75% to USD 107.3 billion in 2015 with the I.T services segment expected to grow by over 9%
(Statista, 2015).

1.1.3 Nigerian Market

The information systems development segment of the Nigerian I.T industry is a challenging one the
chief culprits being contextual in nature and plagued with resource scarcity. Research efforts in the
information systems development have revealed socio-economic, socio-political, and infrastructural
issues as the inhibitors of this segment (Mursu et al., 2000; Soriyan, 2001; Mursu, 2002).
Global and regional competitive position for the organization is at a low this can be attributed to the
operating environment for its business activities being only within the Nigerian information technology
industry.
However, despite to challenges faced in the local (national) industry, CAGEWOX Ltd provides
satisfactory information systems development and consulting for its few longstanding clients and
continues to post healthy earnings after tax.

1.2

Business Innovativeness

Sawhney et al. (2006:76) definition of business innovation stresses new value as its substantive
characterization in addition to a multi-faceted and systemic nature and introduces a 12-Dimensional
innovation radar to help the innovation manager align innovation to corporate strategy and deliver
competitive advantage.
The 4 focus areas of the innovation radar helps organizations describe who, what, where, and how
innovation is shaped in a business context. From a technological perspective, these questions map to
the customers, offerings, presence, and processes required to drive innovation in a business
environment.
CAGEWOX Ltd provides information systems development and management service offerings to
selected government establishments in the Nigerian I.T industry. The organization delivers its value
propositions through a well-established communication network of political and administrative
decision-making personnel.
Innovation plays a very minimal role in the organization as new value creation is often initiated from
its customers and seldom occurs this is mostly incremental and/or process-based innovation

considering the status of each dimension in the innovation radar.

The organization adopts only stable systems development tools and frameworks, introducing new
system features as may be requested by its client; likewise, communication is maintained between
executive management and clients' decision-making personnel to discover what governance and/or
regulatory processes can be improved through automation.
Innovation at the organization is mostly initiated by its customers who though only a few create all
of the organization's financial value. This external origination drives innovation to increase customer
experience, create value, and appraise internal operating processes to improve efficiency in corporate
strategy execution.
However, this forces the organization to remain mildly innovative, focusing its efforts only on areas
identified by its customers to add new technological value and processes that sustain same through
communication synergies with its clients' top management.

2.0 INNOVATIVE CAPACITIES: Cultural and Innovation

Readiness
The established relationship between culture, creativity, and innovation reveals that a paradigm shift
from innovation at the product level to the organization level is imperative for sustainable
entrenchment of these concepts.
Martins' (2000) relation of these concepts described five potential influencers of building an
organizational culture that fosters innovation and creativity, leading to a holistic model outlining
determinants for assessing cultural readiness for innovation in a corporate environment (Martins and
Terblanche, 2003).
Likewise, Ahmed (1998) provides comprehensive guidance on the same subject espousing these
concepts from organizational and individual levels, and discussing factors such as climate,
effectiveness, cultural norms, cultural components, personality, social structure(s), management
qualities, and corporate statements as determining the extent to which the organization and its
employees are able to innovate.
From an individual perspective, factors influencing innovation culture are altogether personal,
cognitive, motivational, and dependent on those norms widely held as standard practice facilitating or
inhibiting innovation and creativity via the organizational climate they create (Ahmed, 1998).
Employees at the case organization demonstrate personality, cognitive, and motivational traits typical
of a hierarchical culture type since management processes at CAGEWOX Ltd follow a top-bottom
flow. While confidence, intuition, and persistence were common among staff personalities, fluency
(expression, association, and ideation), flexibility, and originality were some cognitive qualities lagged
noticeably.
Also, top management hardly owns a standard recognition strategy that rewards exemplary, innovative
staff performance beyond extrinsic incentives, rather it focused more on adhering to a chain of
command, rewarding innovation only when created under given instructions motivation is defined
only in a monetary context (thrift bonuses) and the general assumption to task execution is based only

on management instructions.
From an organizational perspective, innovation culture is reflected in organizational culture possible
via the relationship between culture types and innovation (Deshpande et al., 1993) and the
organizational context determines degree of innovation (Martins, 2000).
This is true because individual sense-making of corporate practices reflects the beliefs of top
management, shaping their perceptions and in turn their individual innovation culture which establishes
the culture mold of the organization and ultimately its innovation culture.
Following Cameron and Quinn (2011) culture types, CAGEWOX Ltd maintains a control culture
characterized by a highly formal work environment with rules and procedures governing behavior;
senior management orchestrating all operations to achieve control, security and predictability; and
long-term stability, efficiency, and performance measuring success based on established policies.
Considering Martins and Terblanche (2003) culture assessment model, CAGEWOX Ltd: maintains a
clear strategy statement to ...increase and maintain business and financial value through management
of information technologies.; operates a not-so-flexible top-bottom management structure empowering
only senior management staff even to basic decision-making concerns yet encouraging crossdepartmental co-operation if needed; lacks standard support mechanisms such as recognition systems,
resources allocation procedures that encourage creativity; promotes innovation behavior such as
ideation, competitiveness, support for change, and knowledge transfer only at task levels; and
emphasize that communication remains on a need-to-know basis.
Correspondences with respondents in the case company revealed a rather unfriendly climate for highlevel creativity and innovation in the organization and a common nonchalant individual innovation
culture.

2.1

Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations

While CAGEWOX Ltd. strategy statement has a clear message, this alone cannot promote an
innovation-friendly organizational climate; strategic corporate statements influence by creating strong
perceptions capable of guiding stakeholder behavior and action even in absence of intervening action.
The strategy is clear, however certain rules and procedures do not support intrinsic, positive perception
towards innovation.
CAGEWOX Ltd. operates a top-bottom management style typical of a highly non-participative
organization structure. Ahmed (1998:36) terms this as a mechanistic structure that is inhibitive to a
conducive innovation culture. The structure identified inhibits an innovative organizational culture an
organic organizational structure should be sought, one that is participative at all organizational
levels, facets, and emphasizes on creative experimenting.
CAGEWOX Ltd. lags significantly in promoting behavior that supports innovation though not
surprising considering its management style. However, efforts must be made to adapt both
collaborative and communal practices that foster innovation.
Judge et al. (1997) discover that one major distinguishing characteristic of innovative culture is
management's ability to create a sense of community in the corporate space, stressing four practices

that could help create such communities. In addition, risk-taking, trust, corporate unity, recognition &
rewards, and leadership commitment are some behaviors that must be mixed with cross-departmental
interaction to promote innovative culture in the case company.
Management's leadership at the case company must, above all, embrace open communication to
originate and demonstrate through practice this simple integration process. Schein (1990:115) mentions
identification with leaders as a cultural dynamic citing examples of primary embedding mechanisms
that project communication between leaders and employees as an underlying theme.
Unfettered communication will also allow an integrative cultural evolution, which creates congruence
between deeper, perhaps unobservable cultural elements that could possibly promote a favorable
innovation culture.

2.2

Innovation Implementation Process

Achieving the intended benefits of innovation efforts requires proper implementation. The innovation
implementation process being an ideas actualization effort can be considered as a 3-phased process
comprising 6 distinct tasks (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007). This process involves: generation the
identification and decision to use; conversion the implementation period of capacity-building and
continuous use; and diffusion the dissemination and acceptance of an innovative idea.
While adoption the decision to go with one innovation precedes implementation in the innovation
process, It is at this third stage of the innovation process that failure is most likely since resistance
occurs here at organizational, departmental, and personal levels.
To ensure implementation success as much as possible at CAGEWOX ltd, Hussin and Huda
(2013) innovation implementation model is used since it takes cognizance of the diffusion of
innovation (DOI) model, a theoretical model, and extends an implementation effectiveness model from
existing literature.
Inasmuch as this implementation model is used to ensure technology implementation effectiveness in
the education sector, its applicability to the case company is possible considering that the innovation
implementation therein is technological in nature; also, CAGEWOX ltd is a consulting firm that
delivers technology solutions to its clients.
Hussin and Huda (2013) implementation effectiveness model comprises two dependent and four
independent variables, and establishes eight conjectural relationships between them. The table below
highlights these variables and their relationships.
Implementation Variable
Top Management Support

Inherent Factors

Relationship(s)

Good IT governance structure;

Top management support should

evident implementation support

facilitate and endorse policies for

implementation activities.

Implementation Policies &

Available training quality &

Practices

quantity; available technical

Implementation policies should

Implementation Variable

Inherent Factors

Relationship(s)

support; available rewards;

promote a positive climate for

accessibility and simplicity of

innovation implementation.

technology.
Top management support should
Implementation Climate

Shared perception of importance; also support a positive

innovation climate

implementation climate, which

supports innovation effectiveness

Human Resource Availability

Available skills & capabilities;

expertise level

Resources (financial, human)

availability influences innovation

Learning Orientation

Supportive learning behavior;

effectiveness.

perception towards risk-taking;

experimentation & adaptation to A shared team learning culture
Innovation use

will support effective

implementation since

Managerial Patience

Tolerance for initial diminished

innovation implementation is

productivity, efficiency, and

never a smooth process.

performance; long-term time

orientation

Patience during implementation

is important among management
as the process will impact
productivity and performance in
the early stages.

Table 1:

2.3

Innovation Implementation Process

Implementation Factors and Measurement Metrics

Klein and Knight (2005:243) discuss drivers and barriers of the implementation process within these
levels, stressing that this phase is the transition period when skills, consistency, and commitment to use
the adopted innovation are built at all levels; and this adoption does not translate to successful
innovation implementation.
Also discussed therein are six factors facilitating and inhibiting successful innovation implementation
in light of longitudinal and case studies research on innovation implementation. Adams et al.
(2006) innovation measurement framework which provides an evaluation-based approach to
innovation implementation is employed herein to help CAGEWOX ltd comprehend the implications

of Klein and Knight (2005) discoveries considering the organization's management style.
This is possible due to the ability of the measurement framework to fit into the dimensions of Kaplan
and Norton (1996; 1993) balanced scorecard as well as the IT Balanced Scorecard (IT-BSC) (Asosheh
et al., 2010; Martinsons et al., 1999). Additionally, it shares a connection with Hansen and Birkinshaw
(2007) innovation value chain with its knowledge management category.
For CAGEWOX ltd, the barriers and drivers to implementation success are highlighted below.
Category
Inputs Management

Knowledge Management

Measurement Areas

Implementation Challenges

People

Culture Diversified Staff

Physical & Financial Resources

Moderate Financial Resources

Tools

Adequate IT Tools

Idea Generation

Poor Internal Collaboration

Poor Cross-dept. Collaboration
Moderate External Communication

Knowledge Repository

Qualified IT & Other Staff

Good Explicit Knowledge
Moderate Implicit Knowledge

Information Flows

Great External Sources

Rigid Internal Sources
Good Client Contacts

Innovation Strategy
Organization & Culture
Portfolio Management
Project Management

Commercialization

Strategic Orientation

Subjective Innovation Strategy

Strategic Leadership

Top=Bottom Management Flow

Culture

Hierarchical Culture

Structure

Mechanistic Structure

Risk/Return Balance

Subjective Measurement Metrics

Optimization Tool Use

Not Available

Project Efficiency

Phased Development

Tools

Standard Project Mgmt. Process

Communications

Internal & External Flow

Collaboration

Internal & External Synergies

Market Research

Closed, Client-Specific Research

Market Testing

Open, Client-Neutral Process

Marketing & Sales

Product/Service Segmentation

Table 2: Implementation Measurement Framework

Considering the above relationships for IT innovation implementation at the case company

CAGEWOX ltd, idea generation records poor internal and cross-departmental collaboration. Similarly,
moderate external communication shows that communication flow with the external environment can
improve.
Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) innovation value chain sets the innovation implementation phase for the
case company at the idea generation stage. This is not surprising as revelations from the measurement
framework suggests an inhibitive environment for innovation.
The challenges identified for the company of each measurement area is captured in Klein and
Knight (2005) as barriers for effective innovation implementation. These include; hassle factor,
innovation complexity, fragmented decision-making, status changes, performance inhibitions, and
knowing-doing gap.
Also outlined in Klein and Knight's (2005) text are corresponding drivers for effective innovation
implementation: implementation policies; innovation climate; management support; implementation
benefits; financial resources availability; learning orientation; and managerial patience.
Below is a relationship map linking these challenges with corresponding measurements and solutions.
Measurement Category
Inputs Management

Implementation Challenges

Solutions

The Hassle Factor: common with Quality Implementation policies.

Technological innovations.

Knowledge Management
Innovation Strategy
Organization & Culture

Innovation Complexity: steep

Organizational Innovation

learning/implementation curve.

Climate, Learning Orientation.

Fragmented Decision-Making:

Management Support: using

poor target users' participation.

persuasive/dictatorial strategy.

Knowing-Doing Gap: deliberate

Implementation Benefits: reward

failure to do the needful effective. accolades, and recognition.

Portfolio Management

Performance Inhibitions.

Financial Resources Availability.

Project Management

Status Changes: hierarchical

Management Support, and

management position adjustment. Learning Orientation.

Commercialization

Performance Inhibitions

New Product Development,

Market Readiness

Table 3: Implementation Challenges and Solutions

3.0 TECHNOLOGIES ANALYSIS: Proposed Technological

Innovations
Information systems are necessary information technology investments that play a major role in
creating competitive advantage for 21st century organizations when made part of an overall business
strategy and implemented successfully (Eras et al., 2010). For CAGEWOX Ltd, two of such systems
are needed for strategic innovativeness Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) systems.
While the ERP system automates internal management of the organization, the CRM system automates
external management of the enterprise (Alshawi et al., 2011).

3.1

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are management systems implemented by businesses
aiming to achieve optimization through streamlined operations. They are business management systems
comprising integrated, comprehensive software packages used to manage all business functions within
the firm and are characterized by core process integration and rational data architecture (Schlichter and
Kraemmergaard, 2010).
The diversity of ERP implementation across different disciplines including accounting, operations
management, computer science among many others shows its ability to deliver IT innovation regardless
of industry and/or organizational unit its functions spanning across components of a business' value
chain and delivering innovativeness across the organization via modularized, self-contained software
packages (Schlichter and Kraemmergaard, 2010;Peslak et al., 2007).
This suggests that the ERP knowledge domain is interdisciplinary in nature and has matured, evolving
its widespread adoption into a standard entry-level IT innovation for business operations (Schlichter
and Kraemmergaard, 2010;Peslak, 2006;Kumar and Van Hillegersberg, 2000).
Holistically, corporate justifications for adopting ERP systems are technological, operational, as well as
strategic some of which include; performance improvement, costs reduction, customer service
improvement, simplified business processes, business transformation (ex. Mergers and Acquisitions),
improved information quality, and also reduced inventories (Eras et al., 2010;Wu and Wang,
2007;Gargeya and Brady, 2005;Park and Kim, 2003).
However, factors such as environmental context (i.e. operating location), organization size,
management representation (i.e. IT leadership ex. Chief Information Officer, IT Director), and ERP
implementation stage impact the innovation capabilities of ERP adoption and implementation.
These factors corroborate the various phases comprised in popular models for organizational-level IT
adoption such as Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) (Bradford and Florin, 2003) and TechnologyOrganization-Environment (TOE) framework (Pan and Jang, 2008).
A major benefit of ERP implementation is its capacity to realize process innovations made possible
because one of its critical success factors is organizational culture and change management. While this
remains a tough factor to manage, Kumar et al. (2003) suggest that to increase change acceptance for
ERP, user participation and training is required.

A rational data architecture allows integration of disparate organizational functions (human resources,
sales, accounts, et cetera). This is the primary innovation capability of enterprise systems both ERP
and CRM. For ERP systems, this architecture provides standard cross-departmental transaction
automation leading to improved throughput for traditional organization functions across departments
(Aral et al., 2006;Cotteleer and Bendoly, 2006;McAfee, 2002).
While there has been increased demand and support for ERP adoption in Africa's IT industry in recent
past, Uzoka et al. (2008) using their extended technology acceptance model (TAM) rank contextual
determinants for ERP selection and use, listing system quality, information quality, and system support
as product adoption determinants of the ERP adoption experience.
Their results for organizational determinants commensurable to the ERP adoption experience amongst
firms list firm size as a significant adoption determinant, also including regulatory standards, product
experience, buying centers such as multi-department committees and the IT department as influential in
the organization's adoption experience.
Overall, ERP systems enable flexibility and suitability in adopting organizations, facilitating easy
identification of potential improvements for process innovations (Dehning et al., 2007;McAfee, 2002).

3.2

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems provide standard processes, strategies, and
technologies that allows efficient product and/or service delivery from organization to customer,
facilitating high quality relationship between both parties.
CRM is a potential 3rd party IT portfolio resource expected to improve organization-customer
relationship and promising to enable the setup, development and maintenance of client relationship
mainly due to its low acquisition cost, easy implementation and use (King and Burgess, 2008).
This enterprise system adds value to standard enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems by enabling
interactive relationship between the organization and the customer at relatively low cost possibly
implemented either independently or as a software package in a larger ERP system as well as
facilitating new product revenue generation, customer transaction costs, customer loyalty, and shortterm product innovation (Alshawi et al, 2011;Dong and Zhu, 2008;Ryals, 2005).
Essentially, CRM systems create a technological point of convergence and connectivity for people
(staff and clients) and processes (organizational resources and capabilities) as well as collaborating
organizations (partners) aimed at creating better understanding of customers' needs; facilitating and
supporting effective business strategy; and building long-term client relationships (Shang and Seddon,
2000).
Few organizations have adopted the CRM system as a form of IT investment locally, regardless of its
relatively low implementation costs. CAGEWOX ltd, while only maintaining a handful of government
organizations as clients, would require proper management of its clients' relationships in order to
achieve the potential benefits of the system.

3.3

Implementation Requirements

Attempt is made to consider implementation concerns of both systems from an integrated perspective.
This is because of the inherent possibility to do so with both information systems as well as the
potential value of an integrative approach to improving organizational performance (Dong and Zhu,
2008;King and Burgess, 2008).
This integrative approach is adopted since information systems when deployed with other
information systems in a complementary manner affect organizational performance within and
beyond the operational space; create competitive advantage that is difficult to mimic; and create new
business processes that are valuable to the firm (Hsu, 2009;King and Burgess, 2008;Wade and Hulland,
2004).
This integrative approach follows the resource-based view (RBV) framework for establishing ITBusiness value and therefore justifies its application for the case company.
Organization size has been identified as one of the critical success factors of ERP implementation, use,
benefits realization, as well as determining the integrative value of information systems to overall
organizational performance through shared knowledge between top and middle management, and
assimilation (Mabert et al., 2003; Elbashir et al., 2013).
CAGEWOX ltd is classified as an small and medium enterprise (SME) in the national corporate affairs
commission (CAC). Its size is considered in terms of annual revenue as against staff strength in order
to measure implementation costs as a percentile value thus determining how size impacts ERP
implementation accordingly, implementation concerns consider 5 factors viz; motivations for
adoption, implementation strategy, modules customization, modules adoption and configuration, and
costs & benefits (Mabert et al., 2003:240-244).
Some motivations for the proposed IT innovation at CAGEWOX ltd being an IT consulting firm
include; systems standardization, process(es) simplification, improved internal and external
communications, organizational restructuring, as well as to gain strategic advantage. Implementation
would also follow a Big-Bang approach where all key packages (accounting, human resources, order
entry, customer relations, project management, payroll management) are implemented simultaneously
typical with small and medium enterprises.
For CAGEWOX ltd, internal organizational processes would need to change to adhere with standard
ERP functionalities as against heavy customizations via code-base refactoring. Only the order entry
module would need customization in order to fit their peculiar internal processes, improved
periodically and critical to competitive advantage for the organization.
The afore-listed modules for implementation are standard ERP modules, except for the customer
relations module. Flexibility of these modules would help standardize internal processes in the case
company and best fit the organization considering its size and degree of complexity. CRM is
implemented in the customer relations module thereby eliminating the need to deploy multiple
information systems for the organization.
Customer relationship management can also be implemented separately, however, this would only
increase implementation and maintenance costs as well as the overall learning curve required for

successfully implementing the proposed IT innovation.

As an SME, CAGEWOX ltd would require between 3% and 6% of its annual revenue for ERP
implementation, within a period of 2 3 years. Subsequently, software, hardware, training and
consulting costs for implementation would demand between 28% - 35%, 18% - 21%, 9% - 10%, and
23% - 30% respectively (Mabert et al., 2003:243). Other ancillary costs such would require roughly 1%
of annual revenue during implementation.

4.0 INNOVATION STRATEGY: Technology Roadmap for

CAGEWOX Limited
The concept of roadmapping is a process that integrates business, technology, and strategy by giving
pictorial illustration(s) of the relationship(s) and interaction(s) between products, technologies, and
markets over time aimed at identifying and bridging gaps in these artifacts to foster innovation that
creates sustainable competitive advantage (Phaal et al., 2004; Groenveld, 2007a).
Applicable in diverse domains product, technology, business, process, et cetera its main value
proposition for innovation is to suggest new strategies, market discoveries, products, and/or
technologies based on the evolution and systematic juxtaposition of organizational artifacts in
innovation factories (Phaal et al., 2004; Rinne, 2004:69; Groenveld, 2007a, 2007b).
The peculiarity of roadmaps account for their difficulty in design and implementation by organizations
as no two roadmaps are the same, even for organizations sharing the same environmental and
organizational constructs the reason being that roadmaps provide convergence for innovation and
forecasting as a unified discourse, requiring adept considerations of the individual, social, and technical
perspectives of change (Rinne, 2004:72).
Considering that CAGEWOX ltd adopts a bandwagon approach to innovation (Fiol and O'Connor,
2003), the technology roadmap is used here to reveal its innovative capabilities in relation to current &
proposed product offerings, and current & proposed innovative technologies for forecasting, product
and project planning, as well as administrative purposes, following a useful and flexible standardization
and customization approach (Lee and Park, 2005).

4.1

Technology Roadmap

Figure 1: Technology Roadmap for CAGEWOX ltd (Years 1 4).

Products [P1] and [P2] represent the company's flagship document registration and renewal
management, and information management and control systems. Technologies [T1] depicts its in-house
integrated development environment (IDE) software currently in use, [T2] depicts proposed enterprise
resource planning (ERP) software, while [T3] represents customer relationship management (CRM)
software.
Markets [M1] represents current operating software market, [M2] represents its current clientle, while
[M3] and [M4] represent the global enterprise systems and software services markets respectively.
The use of [T1] for the development lifecycle management of [P1] and [P2] is as far as innovation goes
at the case company. [T2] and [T3] is proposed as innovative technologies for streamlined business
processes, leading to the evolution of [T4] an enterprise information system.
Same evolution occurs at the product level as both [P1] and [P2] spawn up an integrated management
information system [P3] comprising document registration, document renewal management, and
resources control subsystems. Note also that [M2] the managed government clientle create
demand for [P1] and [P2]; likewise, [M3] also creates the need to adopt [P3] as standardization creates
the need for conformance with best practices.
At the technology level, [T1] creates rationale for the evolution of [T5] at about the same period as
[T6] and [T7] emerge cloud computing infrastructure and service oriented architecture (SOA)
respectively giving credence to [T5], a cloud-based collaborative development environment used to
manage the development lifecycle of [P4] and [P5] which are SOA variants of [P3].

The global software services market [M4] introduces the necessity [P4] and [P5] which are provisioned
as Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) versions of [P3] subsystems, and [P6] which is provisioned as the
Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) version of [P3]; [P6] is also facilitated by [T8] which evolves as a
combination of [T4], [T6], and [T7].
It is therefore suggested that CAGEWOX ltd pursues an overall innovative aim of transforming into an
innovation factory by collaborating at all management levels to deliver technology-driven alternatives
for its existing service offerings. To achieve this, the company being an innovation-adopting
organization (Damanpour and Wischnevsky, 2006) must collaborate periodically across its
management structure to enrich the above roadmap using object-persistent roadmapping software (Lee
and Park, 2005) with a view to develop and maintain a leadership-driven quantum strategy for
innovation (Heracleous, 2013).

4.2

Quantum Strategy Implementation

The ideology underlying quantum strategy contradicts strategic orthodoxy by claiming the possibility
of combining two generic recipes for strategic thinking to develop a blue ocean strategy something
Apple Inc. has achieved in the last decade (Kim and Mauborgne, 2005; Mallin, 2011; Heracleous,
2013).
In the bid to replicate same at CAGEWOX ltd, it is imperative to strike balance between differentiation
and cost efficiency through strategic leadership. This demands that its management decides, through
adept market analysis, what technologies should be acquired and/or developed on the one hand by
focusing on hiring and/or training the most savvy personnel and fostering an innovative corporate
culture.
On the other hand, in order to attain a commensurate level of efficiency, its business processes must be
streamlined operations, project management, et cetera to reduce costs and strategic leadership one
that make tough yet informed decisions entrenched at the center of all business activities to encourage
innovation at all levels.

5.0 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SCENARIO: Open Innovation

Strategy
Standard practice of organizational innovation adopts a closed approach one that facilitates effective
knowledge retention for innovative ideas within the organization, especially with the research &
development (R&D) department; while this may seem proper in some scenarios, for an SME as
CAGEWOX ltd, openness in the innovation process would accelerate and sustain overall organizational
innovativeness (Oakey, 2013;Laursen and Saher, 2014).
Openness in innovation management processes a concept brilliantly termed open innovation
transforms innovation management by enabling innovation practices in two broad concepts of
knowledge management flow (inbound and outbound) to accelerate innovation and expand markets
through technology exploration and exploitation respectively, as empirically observed in a broad
spectrum of SMEs (van de Vrande et al., 2009;Chesbrough et al., 2006;Chesbrough, 2003).
The simultaneous engagement of internal (innovation teams, management personnel, departments and
units) and external (suppliers, customers, partners, competitors) knowledge sources in the open

innovation paradigm introduces a crowd-source approach to innovativeness, for which different

innovation strategies address specific problems needing innovative solutions (Lakhani and Boudreau,
2013).
Consequently, effective change management and relationship management practices characterizing the
organization's overall corporate culture and strategy must embed an integrative, all-inclusive strategic
innovation process for successful organizational innovation management practices that meet the
original intent of the concept as in the example of CAS Software AG (Brunswicker and Ehrenmann,
2013).
Being a technology consulting organization, in order to deploy innovative technologies successfully,
CAGEWOX ltd must approach the open innovation concept as a conflation of open-boundary and
open-source innovations (Euchner, 2013); and to further concretize open innovation as part of the
organization's corporate culture and strategy, it must reconfigure its current business model such that
aligns with its preferred open innovation strategies (Lakhani and Boudreau, 2013:6; Saebi and Foss,
2015).
Accordingly, considering the purpose and challenges faced by CAGEWOX ltd, it is proposed that both
crowd-based and collaborative open innovation strategies are adopted, and the degree of openness
required to reconfigure existing corporate practices are embraced.
To achieve this, implications for open innovation adoption must be considered from content, structure,
and governance dimensions of its business model. Below is a table highlighting considerations of these
dimensions for each of the proposed strategies (statements in red highlight needed reconfigurations).
Business Model Dimension

CONTENT
STRUCTURE

GOVERNANCE

Overall Approach

Open Innovation Strategy

CROWD

COLLABORATOR

user-centric (open-source)

collaborative (open-boundary)

User driven (determine content

Partner-driven (search for I.T

of innovation via clients)

partners; universities, firms, etc)

Outsource (open up innovation

Research (open up innovation

process at adoption and

process at comprehension and

implementation stages)

assimilation stages)

Motivate (discourage

Motivate (sub-contract and share

not-invented-here perception

rewards with external knowledge

through incentives)

partners)

Engage clientle in technology

Search for, identify, and engage

development process to embed

external knowledge partners;

innovation practice; create new

adopt the lead user systematic

roles to be filled by expert staff

model innovation management;

Business Model Dimension

Open Innovation Strategy

for outside collaboration; reward reward breakthrough discovery
Innovative behavior internally

that creates innovative capacity.

and externally

In summary, the new business model for CAGEWOX ltd would demand mid-level collaborative value
creation, achieved through more of a dyadic and also unilateral knowledge management flow that
balances the collaborative capabilities created between internal and external experts.
Both search and motivation are mandatory in the proposed innovation strategy for the case company,
and the degree of flexibility achieved thereof is certain to continually identify, implement and sustain
innovation at CAGEWOX Limited, maintaining and/or increasing competitive advantage and market
share over time.

REFERENCES
Adams, R., J. Bessant, and R. Phelps, (2006) 'Innovation management measurement: A review',
International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), pp.2147.
Ahmed K., P., (1998) 'Culture and Climate for Innovation', European Journal of Innovation
Management, 1(1), pp.3043.
Alshawi, S., F. Missi, and Z. Irani, (2011) 'Organisational, Technical and Data Quality Factors in CRM
Adoption - SMEs Perspective', Industrial Marketing Management, 40(3), pp.376-383.
Aral, S., E. Brynjolfsson, and D.J. Wu, (2006) 'Which Came First, IT or Productivity? The Virtuous
Cycle of Investment and Use In Enterprise Systems', In: ICIS 2006 Proceedings.
Asosheh, A., S. Nalchigar, and M. Jamporazmey, (2010) 'Information Technology Project Evaluation:
An Integrated Data Envelopment Analysis and Balanced Scorecard Approach', Expert Systems with
Applications, 37(8), pp.5931-5938.
Bradford, M., and J. Florin, (2003) 'Examining the Role of Innovation Diffusion Factors on the
Implementation Success of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems, International Journal of
Accounting Information Systems, 4(3), pp.205-225.
Brunswicker, S., and F. Ehrenmann, (2013) 'Managing Open Innovation in SMEs: A Good Practice
Example of A German Software Firm', International Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management, 4(1), pp.3341.
Cameron, K.S., and R.E Quinn, (2011) 'Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on
The Competing Values Framework', California:Jossey-Bass.
Chakravarthy, B.S., (1987) 'On Tailoring A Strategic Planning System To Its Context: Some Empirical
Evidence', Strategic Management Journal, 8(1), pp517-534.

Chesbrough, H. W., (2003) 'Open Innovation: The New Imperative For Creating and Profiting From
Technology, Boston, MA:Havard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H., W. Vanhaverbeke, and J. West, (2006) 'Open Innovation: Researching A New
Paradigm, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Cotteleer, M.J., and E. Bendoly, (2006) 'Order Lead-Time Improvement Following Enterprise-IT
Implementation: An Empirical Study', MIS Quarterly, 30(3), pp.643-660.
Damanpour, F., and D. J. Wischnevsky, (2006) 'Research on Innovation in Organizations:
Distinguishing Innovation-Generating from Innovation-Adopting Organizations', Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 23(4), pp.269291.
Dehning, B., V.J. Richardson, and R.W. Zmud, (2007) 'The Financial Performance Effects of IT-Based
Supply Chain Management Systems in Manufacturing Firms', Journal of Operations Management,
25(1), pp.806-824.
Deshpande, R., J.U Farley, and F.E Webster, (1993) 'Corporate Cultures, Customer Orientation and
Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis', Journal of Marketing, 57(1), pp.23-27.
Dong S., and K. Zhu, (2008) 'The Business Value of CRM Systems: A Resource-Based Perspective', In:
41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 277.
Elbashir, M. Z., P. A. Collier, S. G. Sutton, M. J. Davern, and S. A. Leech, (2013) 'Enhancing the
Business Value of Business Intelligence: The Role of Shared Knowledge and Assimilation', Journal of
Information Systems, 27(2), pp.87105.
Eras, A.L., M.A.H. Fedichina, and S. Gozzi, (2010) 'Competitive Factors on Implementation of Open
Source ERP Systems', In: International Conference on Information Systems and Technology
Management, Brazil:CONTECSI.
Euchner, J., (2013) 'The Uses and Risks of Open Innovation.', Research Technology Management,
56(3), pp.4954.
Fiol, C. M., and E. J. O'Connor, (2003) 'Waking Up! Mindfulness In The Face of Bandwagons',
Academy of Management Review, 28(1), pp.54-70.
Gargeya, V.B., and C. Brady, (2005) 'Success and Failure Factors of Adopting SAP in ERP System
Implementation', Business Process Management Journal, 11(5), pp. 501-516.
Groenveld, P., (1997) 'Roadmapping Integrates Business and Technology', Resource Technology
Management, 40(5), pp48 55.
Groenveld, P., (2007a) 'Roadmapping Integrates Business and Technology', Research Technology
Management, 50(6), pp.4958.
Groenveld, P., (2007b) 'Roadmapping Integrates Business and Technology - Revisited', Research
Technology Management, 50(6), pp.5757.

Hansen, M. T., and J. Birkinshaw, (2007) 'The Innovation Value Chain', Harvard Buiness Review,
85(6), pp.121130.
Havard Business School, (2009) 'Types of Innovation: Several Types on Many Fronts', Innovators
Toolkit: 10 Practical Stratgies to Help You Develop and Implement Innovation. Boston: Havard
Business School Press, pp.127.
Heracleous, L., (2013) 'Quantum Strategy at Apple Inc', Organizational Dynamics, 42(2), pp.9299.
Hsu P-F., (2009) 'ERP and eBusiness Integration in the Extended Enterprise', In: 15th Americas
Conference on Information Systems, p. 391.
Hussin, H., and M. Q. Huda, (2013) 'A Conceptual Model of Information Technology Innovation
Implementation Effectiveness in Higher Education', In: 5th International Conference on Information
and Communication Technology for the Muslim World (ICT4M), pp.16.
International Data Corporation, (2008) 'Worldwide Spending, Packages Software 2008'.
Judge, W.G., G.E Fryxell, and R.S Dooley, (1997) 'The New Task of R&D Management: Creating Goal
Directed Communities for Innovation', California Management Review, 39(3), pp.72-84.
Kaplan, R.S., and D. Norton, (1993) 'Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work', Harvard Business
Review, 71(1), pp.134-142.
Kaplan, R.S., and D. Norton, (1996) 'Using the Balanced Scorecard As A Strategic Management
System', Harvard Business Review, 74(1), pp.75-85.
Kim, W. C., and R. Mauborgne, (2005) 'Blue Ocean Strategy: From Theory to Practice', California
Management Review, 47(3), pp.105121.
King, F.S., and F.T. Burgess, (2008) 'Understanding Success and Failure in Customer Relationship
Management', Industrial Marketing Management, 37(1), pp.421431.
Klein, K. J., and A. P. Knight, (2005) 'Innovation implementation: Overcoming the Challenge', Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), pp.243246.
Kumar, V., B. Maheshwari, and U. Kumar, (2003) 'An Investigation of Critical Management Issues in
ERP Implementation: Empirical Evidence from Canadian Organizations', Technovation, 23(10), pp.
793-807.
Kumar, K., and J. Van Hillegersberg, (2000) 'ERP Experiences and Evolution', Communications of the
ACM, 43(4), pp.22-26.
Lakhani, K. R., and K. J. Boudreau, (2013) 'Using the Crowd As An Innovation Partner', Harvard
Buiness Review, 13(4), pp.111.
Laursen, K., and A.J. Salter, (2014) 'The Paradox of Openness: Appropriability, External Search and
Collaboration', Research Policy, 43(5), pp.867878.

Lee, S., and Y. Park, (2005) 'Customization of Technology Roadmaps According to Roadmapping
Purposes: Overall Process and Detailed Modules', Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 72(5),
pp.567583.
Mabert, V. A., A. Soni, and M. A. Venkataramanan, (2003) 'The Impact of Organization Size on
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Implementations in the US Manufacturing Sector', Omega, 31(3),
pp.235246.
Mallin, M. L., (2011) 'Apple Inc.: Product Portfolio Analysis', Journal of the International Academy
for Case Studies, 17(7), pp.6375.
Martins, E. C., and F. Terblanche, (2003) 'Building Organizational Culture that Stimulates Creativity
and Innovation', European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), pp.6474.
Martins, E. C., (2000) 'The Influence of Organisational Culture on Creativity and Innovation in A
University Library", MInf dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria.
Martinsons, M., R. Davison, and D. Tse, (1999). 'The Balanced Scorecard: A Foundation for the
Strategic Management of Information Systems', Decision Support Systems, 25(1), pp.7188.
McAfee, A., (2002) 'The Impact of Enterprise Information Technology Adoption on Operational
Performance: An Empirical Investigation', Productions and Operations Management, 11(1), pp.33-53.
Mursu, A., (2002) 'Information systems development in developing countries: Risk management and
sustainability analysis in Nigerian software companies', University of Jyvskyl.
Mursu, A., K. Olufokunbi, H. A. Soriyan, and M. Korpela, (2000) 'Information Systems Development
in a Developing Country: Theoretical Analysis of Special Requirements in Nigeria and Africa', In:
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp.110.
Oakey, R.P., (2013) 'Open Innovation and Its Relevance to Industrial Research and Development: The
Case of High-Technology Small Firms', International Small Business Journal, 31(3), pp.319336.
Pan, M.J., and W.Y. Jang, (2008) 'Determinants of the Adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning
Within the Technology-Organization-Environment Framework: Taiwan's Communications, Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 48(3), pp.94-102.
Park, C.H., and Y.G. Kim, (2003) 'A Framework of Dynamic CRM: Linking Marketing with
Information Strategy', Business Process Management Journal, 9(5), pp. 652-671.
Peslak, A.R. G.H. Subramanian, and G.E. Clayton, (2007) 'The Phases of ERP Software
Implementation and Maintenance: A Model for Predicting Preferred ERP Use', Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 48(2), pp.25-33.
Peslak, A.R., (2006) 'Enterprise Resource Planning Success: An Exploratory Study of the Financial
Executive Perspective', Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(9), pp.1288-1303.
Phaal, R., C. J. P. Farrukh, and D. R. Probert, (2004) 'Technology Roadmapping - A Planning
Framework for Evolution and Revolution', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(1-2),

pp.526.
Rinne, M., (2004) 'Technology Roadmaps: Infrastructure for Innovation', Technological Forecasting &
Social Change, 71(1), pp.6780.
Ryals, L., (2005) 'Making Customer Relationship Management Work: The Measurement and Profitable
Management of Customer Relationships', Journal of Marketing, 69(4), pp.252-272.
Saebi, T., and N. J. Foss, (2015) 'Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open
innovation strategies with business model dimensions', European Management Journal, 33(3), pp.201
213.
Sawhney, M., R. C. Wolcott, and I. Arroniz, (2006) 'The 12 different ways for companies to innovate',
MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3), pp.7581.
Schein, E., (1990) 'Organizational Culture.', American psychologist, 45(2), pp.109119.
Schlichter, B. R., and P. Kraemmergaard, (2010) 'A Comprehensive Literature Review of the ERP
Research Field over a Decade', Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(4), pp.486520.
Soriyan, H. A., (2001) 'Information Systems Development in Nigerian Software Companies: Research
Methodology and Assessment from the Healthcare Sector s Perspective', Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries, 5(4), pp.118.
Statista, (2013) 'Worldwide Information Technology (IT) Spending Forecast from 2005 to 2015 (!n
billion U.S. dollars)', Available at: http://www.statista.com/statistics/203935/overall-it-spendingworldwide/
Statista, (2015) 'Growth forecast IT spendings in Africa and the Middle East in 2014 and 2015, by
segment', Available at: http://www.statista.com/statistics/309398/it-spending-growth-forecast-bysegment-middle-east-africa/
Uzoka, F.M.E., R.O. Abiola, and R. Nyangeresi, (2008) 'Influence of Product and Organizational
Constructs on ERP Acquisition Using an Extended Technology Acceptance Model', International
Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 4(2), pp.67-83.
Van de Vrande, V., J. P. J. de Jong, W. Vanhaverbeke, and M. de Rochemont, (2009) 'Open innovation
in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges', Technovation, 29(6-7), pp.423437.
Wade, M., and J. Hulland, (2004) 'The Resource-Based View and Information Systems Research:
Review, Extension, and Suggestions for Future Research', MIS Quarterly, 28(1), pp.107-142.