Innovation Management in MTN and Safaricom Order Instructions: You are required to compare and contrast the innovation management of two organisations in the same sector but with headquarters in different countries e.g. Toyota and Tata Motors.
You need to compare some of the key aspects of the innovation management of each organisation by utilising appropriate models and frameworks (e.g. Tidd and Bessant’s (2013) 4 step innovation process). You should then go on to establish what the respective organisations can learn from one another in terms of innovation management.
Recommendations to improve Innovation Management in MTN and Safaricom
Finally, you are expected to provide recommendations to improve the innovation management in each of the businesses.
1. Individual work
2. Primary and Secondary Research
You may find the required information on the organisation via primary (i.e. contact someone in each business at a management level) or secondary/desk (i.e. web, journal articles) research. English language sources are preferable, non-English sources are acceptable as long as a translation of the reference is provided.
3. Writing the Report
Write up your work in a report format. Your report should explicitly include all the items listed in the marking schedule. It should be a minimum of 4,000 to adequately answer the question and a maximum 4,500words in length (excluding references, appendices etc). Please include the word count on the title page; work that exceeds the word limit will be capped per University regulations.
4. Referencing
It is essential that you provide appropriate referencing to avoid both the impression of plagiarism or that you are fabricating work.
Innovation Management in MTN and Safaricom Introduction
• Introduce the two organisations
• Identify some of their main innovative end results.
Analysis
• Compare and contrast the innovation management of the two organisations from your first report.
Utilise appropriate models and frameworks from class material (e.g.
episodes from Tidd and Bessant’s innovation process model and
contextual elements).
• On the basis of your analysis, establish what the respective businesses can learn from one another in terms of innovation
management.
• Provide recommendations to improve the innovation management
in each of the businesses.
Innovation Management in MTN and Safaricom Report conclusions
• Briefly summarize the report’s main points
Presentation
• Easy to follow
• Contents page, page numbers, subsection; easy to read- font, spacing, header/footer (matric. number(s), date)
• 4,500 words – strictly enforced
References
• Appropriate use (‘intext’ a must!)
• Consistent style
SAMPLE ANSWER
Contents
Abstract 3
Introduction. 4
MTN.. 4
Safaricom.. 6
Safaricom’s Case. 8
Top management (or its subset) as a group. 11
Cross-functional, high-level steering group. 12
MTN’S Case. 13
Chief research officer (CRO) or Chief technology officer (CTO) as the ultimate champion of innovation 13
The dedicated innovation manager. 15
How Safaricom and MTN compare and contrast in terms of innovation management 16
What can the two companies learn from each other?. 17
Recommendations. 18
References. 19
INNOVATION MANAGEMENT IN MTN AND SAFARICOM
Abstract
Innovation management basically entails effectively capturing and managing innovation within an organization. This concept is imperative in bringing together social software and collaboration with the aim of achieving optimal results in any organization. Thus, a culture of innovation and sharing of knowledge is encouraged and developed when those with different expertise and skills co-create by coming together. Most companies nowadays recognize that innovation is central in driving the growth of business even as they seek to maintain competitive advantage. It is for this reason that they have adopted organization-wide programs for managing innovation. This report presents an examination of some of the programs (for managing innovation) of two of Africa’s most successful telecommunication companies namely MTN and Safaricom. The construction basically seeks to compare and contrast the key aspects of their innovation management practices.
Introduction to Innovation Management in MTN and Safaricom
Successful innovation and subsequent development of new services and products are considered pivotal in the overall success of any organization. More specifically, firms in the telecommunications industry must ensure they are not left behind as far as this aspect of development is concerned. They have to do their best and stay ahead of competitors, or at least make sure they are close behind incase they are not leaders in the market. The fundamental objective is to maintain competitive advantage. In this breath, it is appreciated that to design and launch a new product is a risky venture, with much uncertainty as to what the effects of such a development would be. Effective management of innovation and various processes involved in the development of new products therefore involves identifying those ideas with the greatest potential (of success) and adopting necessary measures to lower failure risks. Every company is obliged to give room for best creative techniques in idea generation. Also, every effort must be made to ensure the design of new products and services is done analytically and sales projection and forecasting done accurately. It is imperative that the strategies and tactics employed in the launch of new services and/or products are productive. Here, the strategies, approaches and models applied by MTN and Safaricom in innovation management shall be examined. Before further ado, it is important that some light be shed on the companies under focus. Afterwards, more details shall be presented regarding their respective approaches in innovation management. Relevant comparisons and contrasts shall then be drawn.
MTN
The ‘Mobile Telephone Networks’ (MTN) Group is a multinational company in the telecommunications industry which operates in several countries cutting across Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. It has its headquarters in Johannesburg, South Africa (Paul, 2000). The company’s CEO has been RS Dabengwa as from 1st April 2011. At different times it has sponsored CAF Champions League and APOEL FC (winners of Cyproit First Division for four consecutive years starting 2009 and UEFA Champions League participants for two consecutive seasons five years ago. Also, its sponsorship deal with England’s Manchester United FC on 18th March 2010 was highly publicized.
The company is active in many countries, especially after its acquisition of Investcom. The countries include Afghanistan, Benin, Botswana, Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Cyrus, Ghana, Republic of Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Iran, Rwanda, Nigeria, Sudan, South Africa, Zambia, Yemen, Swaziland, and Syria (Datamonitor (Firm), 2009) . As regards its business operations, its main competitors are the telecommunications companies in the various countries where it operates. For instance, in South Africa, it faces competition from Cell C, Vodacom, Telkom Mobile, and Virgin Mobile (Ngoepe, 2008).
There were reports in 2008 about plans by Bharti Airtel, a telecommunications company based in India, to buy the MTN Group. It was reported in the Financial Times that Bharti was willing to offer US$19 billion to acquire 51% Of shareholding in MTN. It that were to happen, Bharti would become the first Indian firm to hold such large stakes overseas. However, the Indian company pulled out of the deal that had been proposed. A few days later, Reliance Communications, another Indian firm reportedly entered talks with MTN for a possible merger of their businesses, a development that would have made it possible for them to have over 116 million subscribers worldwide with a capital muscle of more than $70 billion. However, it was announced on 8TH July 2008 that the tow firms had decided to end any talks regarding the merger. It has never been clear why they did this.
In a word, MTN’s operations cut across the globe and it is appreciated that the company has been largely successful, save for a few court suits here and there. Of interest in this report is what approaches in innovation management it has employed to remain relevant and successful in its operations. Such shall be compared to and contrasted with those of Safaricom, a company mainly operating in Kenya where it has its headquarters.
Safaricom
Safaricom Ltd is Kenya’s leading mobile network operator. It was founded in 1997 as a subsidiary of Telkom Kenya, fully owned by the same company that time. In 2000, the United Kingdom’s Vodafone Group successfully acquired the company’s management responsibility coupled with a 40% stake. The company’s CEO is Bob Collymore who took over from Michael Joseph towards the close 2010. Collymore has been able to handle his management duties due to his experience in the telecommunications industry, having began his career at British Telecommunications in a number of marketing, commercial and purchasing roles for a period stretching over 15 years. There is uncertainty as to the precise ownership of the company (Africa Center for Open Governance, 2011). Recent press reports indicate the government of Kenya, through The Treasury, holds a 25% stake in the company. There have been claims only 35% is owned by the UK’S Vodafone Plc. A further disputed 5 % is owned by a controversial small-known firm registered as Mobitelea Ventures Limited. At some point this prompted the summoning of the then CEO, Michael Joseph, to appear before the Public Investment Committee. He categorically stated he did not have any knowledge about the said shareholder. It is a known fact that Mobitela Ventures Limited completed purchasing 25% of shares owned by Vodafone in 2002 after receiving a grant to do so. Interestingly, Vodafone parted with $10m in 2003 to regain half of the shares. On 31st March 2009 (end of financial year), Vodafone completed purchase of the rest of the 5% indirect equity stake, consequently restoring its initial shareholding of 40%. The company claimed it had the will to disclose details of the ownership of Mobitelea but could not do so as it was bound by a confidentiality agreement (Africa Center for Open Governance, 2011). .
The company’s employees are in the figure of 1500, mainly stationed in Kenya’s capital; Nairobi. The rest are spread over other main cities and towns in the country including Kisumu, Mombasa, Eldoret, and Nakuru among others where its retail outlets are found. The company has secured various dealerships across the country to ensure its services and products are accessed by a majority of the population. The firm boasts of a customer base of more than 12 million subscribers who are mostly found in the named cities and towns.
It has its headquarters at Safaricom House, located at Westlands’ Waiyaki way, Nairobi. Other company main offices are found at the capital’s Central Business District, namely at Shankardass House which is next to the Kenya Cinema complex on Moi Avenue, and I & M building located on Kenyatta Avenue. It is imperative to note that the company is rapidly engaged in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. For instance, it has committed itself to helping the less fortunate in society through an array of initiatives carried out by its Safaricom Foundation. Its main rivals include Airtel Kenya (its greatest competitor), Orange Wireless, and Essar’s Yu.
In order that a deeper comprehension of the phenomenon under focus be achieved, it is deemed necessary to highlight some of the services and products offered by the company. It is innovation and improvements in these services and products that one is interested to know how they are managed. Briefly stated, the services and products include: electronic cash transfer, flashback service, Kipokezi service (for email and live chat), internet connectivity, text messaging, calls, and electronic gadgets like phones and laptops.
The company, having the largest value of market share in the telecommunication industry in Kenya, has been able to maintain its lead in the sector, almost phasing out some of its rivals. Competition wars have made headlines in the country, a development that made most of the companies lower their tariffs in a bid to maintain their customer base and capture more customers. Nevertheless, Safaricom still remains relatively more expensive as compared to its rivals. Of more interest is the fact that it has still succeeded in remaining the most preferred network provider (operator) in the country. To a great extent, this is owed to its innovation management strategies, which consequently ensure it remains relevant and satisfies its customers. This way, new products and services are developed, completing more the lives of its clients. The approaches in innovation management as employed by Safaricom are presented elsewhere in this report.
Safaricom’s Case
Safaricom is given credit for being a leader in innovation. It is widely recognized for deploying the industry’s best technologies in its bid to remain relevant in the market, thus retaining competitive advantage. It has continually worked towards delivering the best customer experience in the region and industry. Why is innovation so important to the company? Why is it even more important to manage it effectively? What approaches or models does it employ to gain optimal results as far as innovation is concerned?
Within Safaricom, it is widely appreciated that Africa stands out as one of the best regions to conduct telecommunications business. In fact, it is the world’s fastest growing market for mobile telecommunications, having enjoyed annual subscription rise of more than 20% over the past half a decade. Indeed, the continent’s mobile operators are presented with tremendous business opportunities and potential. The mobile network (telephone) sector is indeed driven by innovation in many aspects of business growth. Referring to innovation, it is noted that Safaricom stands out as the best example among firms that have succeeded greatly. For instance, its innovation management strategies were central in the pioneering of its popular M-PESA service (Galpine, 2011). This mobile money transfer system has become the best mobile money payment system in the world. The company’s Chief Technology Officer, Thibaud Rerolle, observed that of all mobile money transactions across the world, half are conducted through M-PESA. In an interview Rerolle pointed out that innovation is one of the most notable differentiating characteristics of the country’s mobile market. More importantly, it is expected to remain eve more relevant and helpful in the future considering that more than 40% of the country’s population is not more than 16 years old. An interesting observation that makes it even more imperative for the company to do more in terms of innovation is the annual increase in connectivity and mobile data usage. The two stand at between 200% and 300%. These have continually gone up with the firm’s periodical offers on entry-level electronic gadgets like smartphones and tablets. A call for effective innovation management is prompted by the need to make these devices relevant in many aspects of the customers’ lives. In addition, the firm’s entry into the enterprise segment makes the case for innovative management stronger.
Safaricom finds the need to innovate and constantly focus on the resulting customer experience for maximum optimization of business opportunities. As such, the company risks being perceived as incumbent if it does not pay the necessary attention to innovation. The result would be a loss of the market share it enjoys in the Kenyan mobile market. After all, being the largest operator in East Africa, it needs to do all it can to attract, retain and find the most out of a wide pool of talent that eventually become its influential workforce. How does it handle innovation processes?
The firm has been keen to apply various models / approaches of innovation management in its operations. The larger management appreciates the need for addressing and sustaining innovation, a very important corporate company objective. The models are crafted by default out of a number of important questions as regards innovation management. They are centered on the objective and mission of innovation, its focus, intensity, funding, and climate. Such would also shed light on any partnerships, alliances, and leadership as well as other processes that are involved in innovation. It is in this regard that R & D processes gain relevance and are conveniently addressed (Sattler, 2011). As it were, the innovation governance model would describe how Safaricom‘s management team allocates its innovation responsibilities, in general or in part within its various departments. Traditionally, a choice can be made to officially entrust a specific person with the mission to oversee and promote innovation. Optionally, a choice can be made to allocate the same responsibility to a particular group of managers who are drawn from different sections within the company. Oftentimes it may not be mentioned that a particular innovation governance model is being employed within an organization but senior managers are at all times better-positioned to give a description of such a model.
The firm under focus has not restricted itself to a single innovation governance model. It is imperatively noted that the model settled upon determines the type and even number of bearers of the responsibility of innovation. Also, the level of management (and resulting involvement) as well as reporting and working relationships of the various sectional and sub-sectional heads are dictated by the type of model being used. Safaricom employs the following:
Top management (or its subset) as a group
Safaricom has it that the overall responsibility of innovation rests with the overall management or a subset of it. This model is the most widely applied and Safaricom has not been left behind in applying it. The firm’s management is of the view that much can be achieved as far as innovation is concerned since it (innovation) happens to be a multi-disciplinary and cross-functional activity which has to be steered at the top and each team member given a chance to offer their input as may be dictated by their specific competencies. Safaricom has followed in the footsteps of companies like Lego, IBM, Nestle Waters, and Corning.
It is noted that in Safaricom, membership to dedicated innovation groups is limited to senior leaders who are most of the time directly involved in innovation activities. Typically, the company has it that innovation groups comprise of commercial and technical or business leaders. Usually, senior staff functions like chief financial officers and those in human resource are not part of innovation teams. The company is very big and usually very busy. It is for this reason that senior officials who may be part of innovation teams deem it necessary to delegate their duties and responsibilities to other colleagues drawn from the top management team. This model has been able to bear fruit since the management usually allocates innovation alongside other items in its regular meetings. Conveniently, a chance is provided for addressing innovation issues whence group heads given a chance to share among themselves their oversight responsibilities for various projects (Afuah, 2008). Such responsibilities are usually those with a high reward/risk profile.
In a word, this approach as employed by Safaricom places more emphasis on the contents of innovation, as opposed to details of the specific processes involved .This is owed to the fact that people at the top ( management) are involved, and a preference is made over new ventures and projects rather than over the particular processes involved (Trauffler, & Tschirky, 2007). . Imperatively, other issues of improvement are delegated to other supporting models which shall be presented below.
Cross-functional, high-level steering group
To compliment its innovation management, Safaricom has applied this model to steer innovation, particularly as a group. In a general sense, it appoints several managers from across different hierarchal levels and functions. These then form an innovation committee that oversees the various processes involved in innovation. This main difference between this model and the one discussed before it is that not all of its members are part of the top management team. Most of the time, the chair or leader of such a group is a member of the executive committee. Within Safaricom, it is not common to see the Chief Research Officer or Chief Technology Officer occupying the position of the chair or leader of the innovation committee.
For one to be a member of the innovation committee, they must qualify on grounds of functional responsibilities as well as display sufficient personal commitment and interest. The company is keen to avoid failure and encourage innovation by avoiding the appointment of skeptics to innovation groups, no matter what their functional responsibilities may be. Most notably, Safaricom assigns such duties to most of its young entrepreneurial innovative managers, mostly on a periodical/rotational basis. It does it even if the implication remains that the managers continue staying low in the hierarchical level. Away from Safaricom, one notes that other big companies like Royal Dutch Shell, Philips, Eli-Lilly, and Tetra Pak have successfully employed this model.
MTN’S Case
As is in any other company, most innovation management aspects have remained a responsibility handled within the hierarchy line of mainstream management. The fruits of such effective management can be seen at MTN in many of the countries it operates in. For instance, in the Republic of South Africa, MTN SA was awarded the highly-regarded Global Telecoms Business award for the best innovation in wireless network infrastructure (Datamonitor (Firm), 2009). More specifically, this award was given after the company successfully implemented the Revenue Assurance solution of cVidya’s MoneyMap. In fact, after its deployment in 2010, the program made cVidya the leading provider of analytics solutions of revenue for the country’s digital and communications service providers.
MTA SA’s head of Revenue Assurance Quintus de Beer is on record for admitting that the advanced solution for cVidya has enabled MTN to move beyond basic revenue assurance to adopt a cautious risk management approach which has consequently impacted positively on billing accuracy and the company’s overall customer experience, further boosting EBITDA and revenue. In a word, there has been significant improvement in operational efficiency and the way business is conducted generally. MTN SA has gone the extra mile to expand cVidya’s operations in analytics domains for revenue intelligence like risk management and the forging of new business lines. Illustration of this award is given in admittance and recognition of the company’s efforts in managing a very pivotal aspect of business: innovation. What model is widely applied by MTN?
Chief research officer (CRO) or Chief technology officer (CTO) as the ultimate champion of innovation
The CRO or CTO approach is recognized as one of the most widely used traditional models of innovation management. It is usually the preferred approach by most engineering-, technology-, and science-based companies (Trott, 2008). MTN applies this model by allocating the responsibility of innovation to these talented individuals who then oversee almost every development as far as new products or services are concerned. Within MTN’s management structure, these individuals are viewed as promoters of new technology as regards the development of new services and products which are meant to positively impact upon customer experience and ultimately increase business volumes through more and more sales.
MTN, operating in more than 10 countries across the globe, has found this model to be most workable in those with strong engineering or technological tradition and sectors. This approach strikes one as being in use when titles like Research President, Chief Engineer, Chief Information Officer, and Senior Vice President R & D and Technology are mentioned. Whatever title is given to these officers, they are the ones the senior management looks up to for guidance as regards innovative developments. Owed to the wide-ranging responsibilities they have, it is not uncommon to find them exercising innovation management with the help of support mechanisms (Mellor, 2006). Within MTN, the officers have their own sectional offices staffed with experts on process and content. The main role of these officers, in collaboration with their heads and other colleagues within MTN is to provide guidance and do whatever that needs to be done for success in the road-mapping of tasks and the assessment of new business opportunities connected with integration of specific new skills and wider adoption of emerging technologies.
The officers are naturally tasked with handling innovation content. This would usually entail the technology as it is applied in the development of specific new products and services (Huizenga, 2006). They mainly focus on the new ventures of business creation that are technology-based. They concentrate on issues of processes and the way such affect the company’s effectiveness in terms of technology and R & D (Le Corre, 2005). In their role, they may set up knowledge and ideation management processes but they usually do not usually interfere in operations of the company that are non-technical. In fact, they may foster a mindset change in R & D which would for instance support cross-sectional and /or inter-disciplinary collaboration within the company, but they do not consider it their responsibility to propagate the effort to the rest of the organization. They may also not feel it is upon them to supervise innovation processes, hence the need for supporting mechanism as mentioned earlier.
The dedicated innovation manager
MTN applies this model of innovation management in a number of countries as may be conveniently decided by respective top managements. Here, it is stressed that the overall innovation responsibility can be the prerogative of one dedicated manager, in opposition to the CTO and CRO who perform specific operational roles (Burns, & Stalker, 2001). Conveniently, where MTN applies this model, it tends to choose the innovation managers from highly motivated upper- or middle-class executives with various functional specializations, usually R & D or typically marketing. Oftentimes, they operate by themselves and report to seniors of the top management team. Occasionally, they have a couple of assisting staff. Their main roles include tracking and conveniently measuring innovation efforts and outcomes (Brem & Viardot, 2013).
The innovation managers identify and share best practices. For MTN they are responsible for supporting innovation initiatives as may be championed by the company. It is imperative to note that they usually deal with side innovation processes as opposed to the content of innovation. More often than not, they are also responsible for MTN’s innovation acceleration mechanisms.
How Safaricom and MTN compare and contrast in terms of innovation management
Before any comparison or contrast is pointed out, it is imperative to note that there are many aspects of the two companies’ innovation management which can not all be entirely exhaustively discussed, let alone be mentioned, within the scope of this report. What is presented here is what is deemed important for overall glimpse and comprehension of the two firms’ innovation management strategies.
Most notable of the differences is as to who is given which responsibility about which content or process. In Safaricom’s case, it is observed that there is a tendency of whole teams focusing collectively on innovation content and processes. There is greater emphasis on content by innovation teams. The responsibility of innovation remains a duty to each and every member of the said team, and anyone within the organization is free to bring forth ideas as to what they may think regarding new technologies that yield new services and products (Holt, 2008). Most importantly, there is a higher degree of management by the top management in the various innovation processes. On the other hand, MTN’s designated innovation officers (depending on the model applied) tend to focus more on the process aspect of innovation, as opposed to content. The top management is not concerned with most R & D processes, since such fall under the duties of innovation officers. However, this is not to say they do not play their supervisory or oversight roles.
As for similarities, most can be drawn on the basis of the fact that the two firms may from time to time apply various models of innovation governance. In one way or the other, different models are applied either as the dominant models or supportively. Whichever the case may be, it is appreciated that general management of technology within the two companies is prioritized and focus is placed upon R & D opportunities and processes which it is believed shall impact positively on corporate revenue, now and in the future. This is the innovation embodiment of the two companies.
The two firms have put in place measures that have facilitated the success of tools for management of product lifecycle and more specifically those applied in the management of technology and R & D processes. They have achieved great success in R & D management while at the same time maintaining the link between product development and the broader objective of integrating R & D knowledge in service and product development. It can not be denied that both firms, in a bid to achieve optimal innovation management, focus greatly on aspects of data management, project management, and workflow management and collaboration.
What can the two companies learn from each other?
Focusing on the various ways and measures of the company’s success, one admits there is much they can learn from each other. For instance, given that Safaricom places emphasis upon teamwork in the various innovation processes, MTN can learn from this that consideration of diversity in all levels and processes of innovation is advantageous in that a wide pool of talent can be harnessed. With more people getting involved, including the top management, a variety of skills is readily available since different people are differently gifted (Christiansen, 2006). In regard to this, MTN should consider broadening the involvement of staff and groups in R & D processes, just as Safaricom has done.
On the other hand, Safaricom can learn from MTN that there are great benefits that can be reaped when R & D management is assigned to specific talented individuals. Perhaps success in this respect can be attributed to the fact that in such a scenario, decision making is easier. Also, consistency that is achieved in many management aspects due to lack of interference is indeed beneficial. In MTN’s scenario, it can be argued that the task of identifying relevant talent and skills is easier since the assigned managers have all the time to concentrate. If Safaricom integrated MTN’s model into its approaches, R & D can get more interesting and fruitful.
Recommendations
In view of how MTN and Safaricom continue to manage innovation it important that they do more to integrate R & D with service and product development. If they gained more visibility into consequential R & D efforts, they would be better-positioned to effectively identify the current and future business/market needs do the necessary alignment as regards resident technology. That way it would be easier to know what is and what is not relevant in terms of innovation content (and processes). Gaps and situations that need to be worked upon would easily be identified, and decisions made regarding the viability of certain technologies. The ultimate outcome would be high customer satisfaction, an objective that drives almost all enterprises the world over.
Where teamwork has not been taken seriously or underestimated, it is recommended that affirmative steps be taken. This is because working together is imperative as regards R & D and wider product development since individuals are diversely talented. It would only be fruitful if these talents are pooled together for optimized innovation. That way, optimal approaches to acquisition of new technology, either developed internally or acquired externally could be adopted, new technology expansion opportunities identified, and avenues of use beyond the current business boundaries identified.
References
Africa centre for open governance. (2011). Deliberate loopholes: transparency lessons from the privatisation of Telkom and Safaricom. Nairobi, Kenya, AfriCOG.
Afuah, A. (2008). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. New York, Oxford University Press.
Brem, A., & Viardot, E. (2013). Evolution of innovation management: trends in an international context.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (2001). The management of innovation. [London], Tavistock Publications.
Christiansen, J. A. (2007). Competitive innovation management: techniques to improve innovation performance. New York, St. Martin’s Press.
Datamonitor (FIRM). (2000). MTN Group Limited. New York, NY, Datamonitor. http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&jid=BDEX.
Galpin, E. (2011). Will there be another M-PESA?: the future for M-banking and payments in emerging markets. London, Searching Finance Ltd.
Holt, K. (2008). Product innovation management: a workbook for management in industry. London, Butterworths.
Huizenga, E. (2004). Innovation management in the ICT sector: how frontrunners stay ahead. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar.
Le Corre, A. (2005). The innovation game a new approach to innovation management and R & D. New York, NY, Springer. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10228873.
Mellor, R. B. (2006). Innovation management. Nærum, Globe.
Ngoepe, M. M. (2008). Quality of service comparison amongst SA’s mobile telecoms industry leaders on value added services (VAS) and service delivery: Cell-C, MTN and Vodacom. Thesis (B.Tech. (Quality and Operations Management))–University of Johannesburg, 2008.
Paul, D. (2000). The Best companies to work for in South Africa. Cape Town, Zebra Press.
Sattler, M. (2011). Excellence in innovation management a meta-analytic review on the predictors of innovation performance. Wiesbaden, Gabler. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=751117.
Trauffler, G., & Tschirky, H. (2007). Sustained innovation management: assimilating radical and incremental innovation management. Basingstoke [England], Palgrave Macmillan in association with the European Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
Trott, P. (2008). Innovation management and new product development. Harlow, England, Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
