Open innovation culture  

and product development  
in a South African  

telecommunications operator 
 

Prince Shonhiwa 

1668082 

 1668082@students.wits.ac.za 

 

A research proposal submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and 

Management, University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfilment of the 

requirements for the degree of Master of Management in the field of 

Innovation Studies 

 

Johannesburg, 2023 

 

 

 



 
ii 

ABSTRACT  

To increase the rate of innovation during product development, 
telecommunications organizations are increasingly adopting open innovation 
strategies. Open innovation is viewed as an important business and national 
strategy in developing nations like South Africa to overcoming structural barriers 
and resource limitations. 

A supportive organizational culture that encourages the bi-directional flow of 
knowledge inside and outside the organization is necessary for open innovation 
to endure. 

The aim of the study is to understand how South African telecommunications 
companies can develop organizational cultures that support open innovation 
during the development of their products. 

Research findings indicate that South African telecommunications providers 
understand the cultural attributes that are crucial for open innovation, and there 
is evidence of their existence to some degree. However, supportive 
organizational structures and capabilities must be developed to enable open 
innovation to mature. 

KEYWORDS 

Innovation, Open Innovation, Organizational Culture, Innovation Culture, Open 

Innovation culture, Telecommunications, Product Management, Product 

development 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

Project Format:   Research Article  

Nominated Journal:   African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation   

                                           and Development  

 

 

 

 



 
iii 

DECLARATION 
 
I, Prince Shonhiwa, declare that this dissertation is my own unaided work except 

as indicated in the references and acknowledgements.  It is submitted in partial 

fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Management in the field 

of Innovation Studies at the Wits Business School in the University of the 

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.  It has not been submitted before for any degree 

or examination in this or any other University. 

 
 

 

 

Signature: …P.Shonhiwa. 

 

 

On this 30th day of June 2023  

 

 

Name: Prince Shonhiwa  

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
iv 

DEDICATION  

I dedicate this research study to the African Innovation community and Innovation 

community in the world at large.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
v 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 

I wish to thank: 

God for blessing me with this opportunity and giving me health and strength to 

endure it. 

My family for always supporting and encouraging me. 

My employer and my colleagues for always supporting me. 

My supervisor for always providing me guidance and pushing me to excellence. 

The academic staff at the University for the invaluable knowledge imparted to 

us. 

The support staff at the University for making the journey pleasant. 

The University of Witwatersrand commitment to sculpting global leaders who 

can shape the future of Africa. 

The friends made during the program for their camaraderie.  

I wish to honour the faith everyone has had in me, and I commit myself to use the 

experiences and learnings to make a positive contribution to Africa and the world. 



 
vi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................. vi 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................ ix 

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... x 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 11 

1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 11 
1.2 PURPOSE OF STUDY .................................................................................. 12 
1.3 BACKGROUND OF STUDY ............................................................................ 13 
1.4 RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................... 16 
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ............................................................................ 17 
1.6 DELIMITATIONS OF STUDY .......................................................................... 18 
1.7 RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................................ 20 
1.8 OUTLINE OF STUDY ................................................................................... 21 
1.9 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER .............................................................................. 21 

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL 
FRAMEWORK 22 

2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 22 
2.2 INNOVATION .............................................................................................. 23 

2.2.1 OPEN INNOVATION ........................................................................................... 26 
2.3 PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 29 

2.3.1 OPEN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 32 
2.4 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ....................................................................... 34 

2.4.1 INNOVATION CULTURE ...................................................................................... 38 
2.4.2 OPEN INNOVATION CULTURE ............................................................................ 40 

2.5 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................. 42 
2.6 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................ 46 
2.7 STATEMENT OF PROPOSITIONS ................................................................... 49 
2.8 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER .............................................................................. 51 

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................. 52 

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................... 52 
3.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS ...................................................................... 53 
3.3 POPULATION AND SAMPLE .......................................................................... 54 
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS STRATEGIES AND INTERPRETATION ...................................... 57 



 
vii 

3.5 POSSIBLE LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES OF THE STUDY .............................. 59 
3.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE ................................................................................ 59 

3.6.1 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY ....................................................................................... 59 
3.6.2 INTERNAL VALIDITY ........................................................................................... 59 
3.6.3 RELIABILITY ..................................................................................................... 60 

3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 60 
3.8 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER .............................................................................. 61 

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS OF STUDY ........................................... 62 

4.1 DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 62 
4.2 DATA PRESENTATION ................................................................................ 63 
4.3 RESULTS .................................................................................................. 65 

4.3.1 SHARED BELIEFS BY EMPLOYEES THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF EXTERNAL 
COLLABORATIONS 65 

4.3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF EXTERNAL COLLABORATIONS
 73 

4.3.3 ORIENTATION TOWARD THE MARKET .................................................................. 75 
4.3.4 ADAPTABILITY OF INTERNAL PROCESSES ............................................................ 79 
4.3.5 INNOVATION MANAGEMENT IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ...................................... 82 
4.3.6 COLLABORATION STRUCTURES IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ................................ 84 
4.3.7 SOURCES OF IDEAS IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 86 
4.3.8 PARTNERSHIPS IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 89 

4.4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS .............................................................................. 93 

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS .............................. 97 

5.1 DISCUSSION ON VALUES CULTURAL DIMENSION .......................................... 100 
5.1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 100 
5.1.2 EXISTENCE OF VALUES CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 1) ............ 101 
5.1.3 IMPORTANCE OF VALUES CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 2) ......... 103 
5.1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS OF VALUES CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 3)

 103 
5.1.5 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 105 

5.2 DISCUSSION ON ORIENTATION CULTURAL DIMENSION .................................. 106 
5.2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 106 
5.2.2 EXISTENCE OF ORIENTATION CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 1) ... 107 
5.2.3 IMPORTANCE OF ORIENTATION CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 2) 110 
5.2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS OF ORIENTATION CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 

3) 110 
5.2.5 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 111 

5.3 DISCUSSION ON INFRASTRUCTURE CULTURAL DIMENSION ........................... 113 
5.3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 113 
5.3.2 EXISTENCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 1)

 114 
5.3.3 IMPORTANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 2)

 116 
5.3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS OF INFRASTRUCTURE CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH 

QUESTION 3) 116 
5.3.5 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 118 

5.4 DISCUSSION ON IMPLEMENTATION CULTURAL DIMENSION ........................... 119 
5.4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 119 



 
viii 

5.4.2 EXISTENCE OF IMPLEMENTATION CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 1)
 120 

5.4.3 IMPORTANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH QUESTION 2)
 122 

5.4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION CULTURAL DIMENSION (RESEARCH 
QUESTION 3) 122 

5.4.5 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 122 
5.5 PRIORITY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 123 

5.5.1 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 123 
5.5.2 PRIORITY RATING ........................................................................................... 125 

5.6 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................ 126 
5.7 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS ...................................................................... 128 

CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF STUDY ........................................ 131 

6.1 RESEARCH SUMMARY .............................................................................. 131 
6.2 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 135 

REFERENCES ............................................................................. 138 

 



 
ix 

LIST OF TABLES 

 

Table 1: Organizational Culture Models ............................................................ 37 

Table 2: Innovation Culture dimensions (Dobni, 2008) ..................................... 39 

Table 3: Innovation Culture dimension aligned to theory base .......................... 48 

Table 4: Proposition and research questions relationships ............................... 50 

Table 4: Research participants .......................................................................... 55 

Table 5: Research analysis methods ................................................................ 58 

Table 6: Research propositions and findings relationship ................................. 64 

Table 7: Alignment of beliefs ............................................................................. 66 

Table 10: Summary of IP concerns ................................................................... 71 

Table 11: Drivers of innovation in product development weighted and ranked. 76 

Table 13: Integrated product innovation processes ........................................... 82 

Table 14: Partnering processes in product development. ................................. 84 

Table 15: Product development external collaborations .................................... 89 

Table 15: Layout of discussions ........................................................................ 99 

Table 16: Existence rating scales of cultural dimension .................................. 123 

Table 17: Impact rating scales of cultural dimension ....................................... 124 

Table 18: Priority ratings description ............................................................... 124 

Table 19: Recommendations priorities ratings ................................................ 125 



 
x 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 

Figure 1: Literature review layout ...................................................................... 22 

Figure 2: Open Innovation Model (Chesbrough, 2003) ..................................... 27 

Figure 3: Common stages in product development process ............................. 30 

Figure 5: Adaptation of Schein (1992) Organization Culture model .................. 35 

Figure 6: Research conceptual framework ........................................................ 47 

Figure 7: Research sample business unit type .................................................. 56 

Figure 8: Research sample participant level ..................................................... 57 

Figure 9: Topology of advantages of external collaborations ............................ 67 

Figure 10: Contributing reasons for advantages weighted and ranked ............. 67 

Figure 11: Topology of disadvantages of external collaborations ..................... 69 

Figure 12:Figure : Contributing reasons for disadvantages weighted and ranked

 ........................................................................................................................... 70 

Figure 13: Topology of the drivers' product innovation ...................................... 75 

Figure 14: Degree of autonomy and flexibility ................................................... 79 

Figure 15: Key factors that influence adaptability .............................................. 81 

Figure 16: Sources of ideation ........................................................................... 86 

Figure 17: External partners in product development ........................................ 90 

Figure 18: Type of business models .................................................................. 92 

Figure 19: Recommendations matrix plot ........................................................ 125 



 
11 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Introduction 

Product development in the telecommunications sector has become increasingly 

complex as there is increased pressure to develop new innovative products and 

services that meet growing customer demands and address socio-economic 

challenges. The operating landscape has often been characterized as fast-

changing, with the rapid developments of technologies, regulatory frameworks, 

and competition increasing the pressure on product development (Gupta et al., 

2007; Zhu et al., 2019).  

As a result, in order to survive and improve performance, there has been an 

increased focus on the sector to adopt open innovation models that allow 

organizations to extend their internal innovation capabilities and accelerate their 

innovation performance. This has brought about a focus on developing internal 

organizational cultures that can effectively embrace open models and external 

knowledge flows in order to respond effectively to the demanding pervasive 

extrinsic demands (Mortara et al., 2010; Zhu et al., 2019).  

In the telecommunications sector, open innovation practices involve collaboration 

with various partners such as suppliers, technology integrators, academia, 

customers, and the public sector leads to new, or improvements in, products and 

services. Open Innovation culture is an organizational culture that promotes and 

encourages the sharing of ideas and resources with external organizations that 

enable effective responses to  challenges (Mortara et al., 2010; Nestle et al., 

2019) 

In the South African context, this approach is becoming increasingly recognized 

as a strategy for the rapid development of new products and services. It is also a 

strategy that enables organizations to overcome the structural challenges faced 

within the ICT (Information Communication and Technology) sector, which 

include limited resources, poor infrastructure, as well as a skills and knowledge 

gap. Open Innovation is therefore not only considered as a means for creating 



 
12 

and exploiting new opportunities and enabling technological transfers, but also 

as an organizational risk management strategy (Bigliardi et al., 2012). 

Telecommunications organizations are, therefore, now engaged in creating 

organizational environments that are both enabling and sustaining for open 

innovation (Bigliardi et al., 2012). 

1.2 Purpose of study  

The research seeks to understand how South African telecommunications 

operators can create organizational cultures that are enabling for Open 

Innovation within their product development. These organizational cultures 

should reduce the failure of open innovation initiatives within the organizations 

allowing the sector to achieve its strategic goals and contribute to economic and 

national development. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
13 

1.3 Background of study  

The operating environment of the sector  

The South African telecommunications industry, which generates over R200 

billion in revenue and employs over 22 000 people (ICASA, 2022), is highly 

competitive and rapidly evolving, with new technologies and business models 

constantly emerging. Like many sectors in the African continent, this evolution is 

barely satisfying the needs of the growing economy and its youthful population, 

and so there is constant pressure to increase access and reduce costs.    

Despite being a sectoral leader in the Sub-Saharan region, South African 

telecommunications, in comparison with other nations, especially the developed 

economies, is still challenged in many respects with issues such as the quality of 

services, as well as the affordability and accessibility of services (GSMA, 2022; 

ITU, 2018).  

The sector is under pressure to continually develop innovative products and 

services in order to remain competitive. However, innovation and product 

innovation in the sector is stifled by several challenges such as the following (DSI, 

2019; ICASA, 2022; NPC, 2012): 

Lack of financial resources – Over the past five years, the total 

Telecommunications investment in South Africa has gradually declined from R47 

billion in 2017 to R33 billion in 2021.  The sector receives very limited investment 

compared to developed nations in the Global North and yet it requires high levels 

of investment as it is inherently highly capital-intensive due to the high costs of 

communications infrastructure that must be distributed nationwide, i.e., network 

equipment, base stations, and Datacentres. Costs are also exacerbated by poor 

national infrastructure i.e. unreliable energy supply that increases the rate of 

equipment failure. Another significant cost driver is the persistent vandalism and 

infrastructure theft of batteries and cables. The South African National 

Infrastructure Plan estimates that it will be required to spend over R6 trillion 

between 2016 and 2040 to achieve its development goals as set out in the 

National Development Plan. The financial constraints referred to earlier limit the 



 
14 

ability of the sector to innovate and develop new innovative products and services 

(DPWI, 2022; ICASA, 2022; Negash & Patala, 2006). 

Lack of Research and Development (R&D) investment - The Global Innovation 

Index ranks South Africa 61st out of 132 countries, citing significant constraints in 

the country's ability to generate innovations. Drivers in the sector include limited 

financial resources and the need for substantial investment in Research and 

Development (R&D), especially at the primary science and technology level.  As 

a result, a limited amount of commercialized IP is generated by the sector (Anthipi 

& Anastassios, 2011; WIPO, 2022). This is evidenced by a large number of 

product designs, business models, and technologies that are modelled outside 

the country and either replicated or imported. Compared to Global North 

Countries, Africa, like many developing economies, is not devoting adequate 

levels of investment in telecommunications (Negash & Patala, 2006). 

Lack of access to the latest technologies required to remain competitive – 

Financial strain and lack of investment in R&D result in South African Operators 

not having access to leading technologies that enable them to compete effectively 

and develop innovative products and services – 4G  and 5G quality and 

penetration of South Africa is still lacking in South Africa compared to the rest of 

the word (ICASA, 2022). 

Lack of skills – South African operators face challenges in attracting and retaining 

people with the skills and expertise to drive innovation. This is evidenced by the 

slow rate of, and failures in, executing several national development and 

modernization initiatives, the large-scale outage of digital services, and the 

persistent emigration of skills out of the country (DHET, 2019; IRMSA, 2022). 

These skills, which include technical and managerial skills, are required to 

develop innovative products and keep up to date with global innovations. The 

National Development 2030 Plan aims to address these challenges by increasing 

government spending and investment in innovation to improve outputs and skills, 

to increase university enrolments by 1.36 million by 2030, and producing over 

30 000 artisans per year (DHET, 2019). 



 
15 

Legal and regulatory barriers – The sector is challenged by an unresponsive and 

unfavourable regulatory operating environment that is not responsive to 

technological developments and market demands. South Africa is ranked 45 out 

of 55 countries for the effectiveness of its intellectual property frameworks 

(USCC, 2022). Its telecommunications framework is not responsive. This 

includes issues such as delayed spectrum allocation and complex licensing 

requirements that result in barriers for new market entrants, prohibiting 

competition and market innovation (ICASA, 2022). 

Open Innovation in the sector 

A response strategy adopted by operators worldwide, including those in South 

Africa, is Open Innovation (De Paulo et al., 2017; Krause & Schutte, 2015; 

Mortara et al., 2010). Open Innovation advocates opening the organizations' 

internal innovation processes to external parties (Chesbrough, 2003; Kaur et al., 

2014).  

Operators have extended their innovation process with external inflows by 

embarking on initiatives such as – crowdsourcing of ideas, shared development 

platforms, joint research with academia, user involvement in the development 

process, and sharing of Intellectual Property (IP). In order to develop an 

innovation culture, operators have taken actions such as establishing dedicated 

innovation functions, developing policies for collaborating with external parties, 

and incentivizing collaboration with external parties. Through collaboration with 

external, the aim is to increase the quantity of innovative ideas, lower research, 

and development costs, and enter new markets for the organization's products 

and services.  

Overcoming these challenges is crucial for the sector's ability to both innovate 

and remain competitive, especially in a market that is becoming increasingly 

global.  Successfully implementing open innovation strategies is critical for the 

sector. A key factor will be the development of organizational cultures that support 

external collaborations and allow for the exploitation of innovations with external 

parties.  



 
16 

This research will focus on understanding the state of Open Innovation culture 

within the telecommunications sector in product development and identifying the 

key factors that promote or prohibit product development and product innovation. 

1.4 Research problem statement 

South Africa’s National Development Plan (NDP) and economic development 

goals are premised on having a solid and vibrant ICT sector with a widespread 

digital communication system that is both accessible and inclusive and which 

drives economic growth (NPC, 2012). 

The region undoubtedly faces several systemic challenges, including resource 

constraints, and continues to be at the back foot of the developed countries in the 

Global North. Collaborative strategies should be considered to overcome 

structural limitations and find solutions more rapidly.  

As the adoption and practice of Open Innovation in the ICT sector increases and 

telecommunications operators extend their innovation processes to include 

external parties, the risk of failure of these initiatives remains high. Despite well-

designed change programs, the failure rate of change initiatives of most 

organizations lingers above 60%-70% (Burnes, 2011; Decker et al., 2012). For 

the telecommunications sector, which is a critical economic enabler, failure 

results in businesses being unable to operate and in people being unable to 

communicate; it compromises national development goals and national security; 

and negatively affects the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 

Consequently, South Africa must catch up to the rest of the world’s ability to 

participate in the digital economy. 

While many factors have been identified as contributors to change failure, such 

as such as insufficient education, poor communication, poor planning, lack of 

leadership support, and inadequate resources, the organizational culture has 

been identified consistently as an important factor contributing to change failures. 
(Burnes, 2011; Decker et al., 2012).  



 
17 

Organizational culture reflects the shared values, beliefs, and practices within the 

organization.  In an open innovation environment, culture becomes highly 

complex due to the increased number of external parties the firm needs to interact 

with (Bigliardi et al., 2012; Gupta et al., 2007). South Africa, like many African 

countries, has rich cultural diversity due to the diversity of its citizens, languages, 

and heritages. The region also has a history of systematic separation. Culture, in 

the context of the region, is, therefore, an essential influencer on the outcomes 

of any strategy. 

A poor culture affects information flows. This compromises the firm's learning 

ability, absorptive capacity, creativity, and effective knowledge transfers which in 

turn lead to failed new product development and innovation. 

While there is growing interest in open innovation, there remains limited research 

on the adoption and implementation of open innovation in the 

telecommunications industry, particularly in the South African context. There is 

an even bigger gap in understanding innovation culture and its impact on the 

success of open innovation.   

The research study aims to fill this gap by investigating the open innovation 

culture in product development within South African telecommunications 

companies. This will be done by identifying the key factors that influence open 

innovation culture and the barriers that companies face when implementing open 

innovation in product development. 

1.5 Significance of study  

The research study contributes to improving the understanding of open 

innovation culture and the way culture can be leveraged in applying open 

innovation within product development to enhance product innovation in the 

telecommunications and ICT sectors. This assists product development leaders 

and innovation management leaders in creating enabling environments for open 

innovation and reducing the failure rate of open innovation initiatives due to 

organizational culture. 



 
18 

The research study also enables innovation managers to identify cultural 

components that affect open innovation in product development. This assists in 

improving overall innovation processes in the South African telecommunications 

and ICT sector. 

The research study also extends the academic discourse and enriches the 

academic knowledge of open innovation culture in the South African 

telecommunications and ICT sector. 

Finally, the research study also assists policymakers and innovation scholars in 

the Telecommunications ICT sector with how innovation within product 

development innovation can be enhanced to improve economic development and 

economic growth in South Africa and address critical societal challenges. 

1.6 Delimitations of study 

• The research focuses on open innovation culture in product development 

within South African telecommunications companies. It does not include 

other industries or sectors. 

• The research focuses on data collected from South African 

telecommunications companies. The study does not collect data from 

other countries. 

• The research is limited to a single telecommunications organization 

operator, which is a market leader in South Africa. The study does not 

include other operators. 

• The research uses qualitative research methods including interviews with 

product management and innovation management teams who are the 

primary custodians of product development and open innovation and 

analyzing academic literature. The research does not include quantitative 

research methods. 

• The research focuses on a single point in time. Data from outside this time 

frame will not be included. 



 
19 

• The delimitations of the study ensure that a relevant and in-depth 

understanding of open innovation culture within product development in a 

South African telecommunications sector can be achieved. At the same 

time, the generalizability of the research may be limited. The heterogeneity 

of the sector and the rich findings will generate practical findings that can 

be applied to change initiatives and enhance the relevance of the subject 

in academia and the sector in the country. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
20 

1.7 Research question 

The research seeks to understand how South African telecommunications 

operators can create organizational cultures that enable open innovation within 

their product development. These organizational cultures should reduce the 

failure of open innovation initiatives within their telecommunications operators 

and similar organizations in the ICT sector. The study's research questions are: 

1. Is there an existence of innovation culture dimensions that motivate the 

success of open innovation within South African telecommunications product 

development? 

2. What is the relative importance of the innovation culture dimensions within 

South African telecommunications product development? 

3. Are there recommendations for the industry that could improve the success of 

open innovation within South African telecommunications product 

development? 

  

  

 

 

 

 

 



 
21 

1.8 Outline of Study 

The research study is structured as follows. 

Chapter 1: This section provides the research background, the aims of the 

research, and the rationale for the research.  

Chapter 2: This section reviews the existing body of knowledge and develops a 

theoretical framework used to develop the research propositions. 

Chapter 3: This section provides details on the research design, data collection 

methods, and data analysis methods used. 

Chapter 4: This section presents the research findings from the data collected. 

Chapter 5: This section analyses and discusses the data against the theoretical 

framework in line with the research objectives.  

Chapter 6: This section provides a conclusion for the research and gives 

recommendations for the direction of future studies on the research subject. 

1.9  Summary of chapter 

The ICT sector is constrained by several systemic factors that impede innovation, 

such as a lack of infrastructure, a lack of investment, and a lack of an enabling 

regulatory environment (ICASA, 2022). Amongst these are also organizational 

culture challenges that constrain innovation. In response, South African 

telecommunications operators and other organizations in the ICT sector are 

increasingly adopting open innovation strategies in order to overcome these 

challenges and enhance product innovation (Bigliardi et al., 2012). These open 

strategies involve collaboration with external parties at various stages of product 

development to enhance outputs. 

The research questions defined are aimed at understanding the organizational 

culture and how it can be leveraged to improve the success of open innovation in 

product development. 



 
22 

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND 
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 

2.1 Introduction 

The review of literature seeks to explore the existing knowledge base on 

organizational culture in open innovation and product development 

telecommunications sector in South Africa.   

The literature review was undertaken by reviewing academic publications, books, 

and industry publications related to the research topics.  The review focused on 

the core theoretical concepts, including Open Innovation, Organizational culture, 

and Product Development. The research prioritized research literature conducted 

in the telecommunications and ICT sectors to acquire a sound understanding of 

the theoretical concepts in the sector. Due to the limited research specific to 

South Africa, data from similar technological sectors was used, including local 

industry reports. The literature review further informed the research constructs 

related to the core theories ensuring an appropriate research design that was 

able to achieve the research aims. 

Additionally, the review identified gaps in the literature, particularly in the South 

African context, and provided recommendations for future research.  

The Literature review is arranged as follows:  

Figure 1: Literature review layout 

 

The following review literature discusses findings on the above central theoretical 

foundations of the research. 

Innovation 

•Open Innovation

Product 
development

•Product 
development 
processes

Organizational 
Culture 

•Innovation 
Culture

•Open Innovation 
Culture



 
23 

2.2 Innovation  

The subject of innovation has gained widespread global attention and focus due 

to its ability to drive economic growth, solve societal problems, and enhance 

organizational performance. The concept has varied definitions, including a 

process for firms to put into practice designs and techniques that are new (Nelson 

& Rosenberg, 1993), new or significantly changed processes or products  (Gault, 

2018), or a new combination of ideas, capabilities, and resources (Fagerberg, 

2004). The concept can be described as the process of creating new or improving 

products, services, processes, or business models that create value. Innovation 

can leverage creativity to create value. 

The widespread acceptance of innovation in business management was largely 

influenced by endogenous growth economists who argued that economic growth 

could be generated internally. Under the endogenous growth theory, scholars 

advocated that economic growth was not only predicated on exogenous factors 

outside the firm, but by factors such as intellectual property, new ideas, human 

capital, and R&D investments which would increase output, thus increasing 

economic growth (Acemoglu, 2002; Krugman, 1991; Lucas Jr, 1988; Romer, 

1990; Stiglitz, 1987). This has shifted the rate of technical change from an 

external factor to an internal factor and focused on firm-level innovation leading 

to the current considerations in organizational structures and investments. This 

has led to innovation being deemed critical for business growth and economic 

growth and the business (Romer, 1990). The criticism against the endogenous 

growth and innovation perspective includes the lack of generalizable empirical 

evidence, the assumption of perfect competition, and challenges in measuring 

constructs such as knowledge and ideas (Chirwa & Odhiambo, 2018). Arguably, 

the number of organizations and states that have achieved significant growth due 

to technological innovations presents a strong case for the argument (Viotti, 2002; 

Wu et al., 2009). 

The impact of innovation on business and the economy has made innovation a 

state-level agenda in many developing economies. In South Africa, the 

Department of Science and Innovation, formerly Science and Technology, has 



 
24 

identified innovation as a primary driver for economic growth, job creation, and 

economic development and has set out policies to drive the agenda (DSI, 2019).  

A major critique levied against African states has been that the region lacks well-

organized innovation systems that have the capability to stimulate, fund, and 

successfully diffuse innovations (Chaminade et al., 2018; Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, 

2014; Padilla-Perez et al., 2009). A NIS can be described as a network or system 

comprising a number of actors whose interactions and quality of interactions 

influence the rate of innovation. These systems can exist at a firm (micro-level), 

in a region or sector (meso-level), and at a national or geo-political level (macro-

level) (DSI, 2019; Lundvall, 1992; OECD, 1997). In comparison to the Global 

North, Chaminade et al. (2018) characterized NIS in the Global South as loosely 

coupled with weak connections resulting in low rates of innovation, especially in 

the science and technology sectors. A strategic objective for the South African 

state is therefore the building of a strong National Innovation System.  

The state plays an active role in coordinating players in the region to ensure that 

innovation is inclusive, supporting knowledge creation, investment, and 

innovation diffusion within the sector. A strong focus has been to ensure that 

there are clear links between academia, where primary knowledge generation 

takes place, businesses where innovation is developed and commercialized, and 

the state, which creates a free and fair environment for innovation to thrive. In 

addition to the triple Helix (Government, Academia, and Business) (Etzkowitz & 

Leydesdorff, 1995), the South African government has placed a strong emphasis 

on leveraging indigenous knowledge and on involving the local communities in 

developing innovation (DSI, 2019). Supporting the criticism by Viotti,  traditional 

NIS systems were narrowly focused on science and technology, while in the 

Global South these should be widened to take into account complementary actors 

and activities such as culture, traditions, indigenous knowledge, etc. (Viotti, 

2002).  

The concept of innovation is vast as innovation varies in type and degree. The 

types of innovation include product innovation (tangible), process innovation, and 

business model (conceptual) (Goffin & Mitchell, 2016). This enables products to 

be enhanced not only through new product introductions but also by enhancing 



 
25 

the supplementary business processes and ways the products are taken to 

market. Innovation also varies in degree ranging from incremental innovation, 

wherein there are minor improvements made to products and services that are 

existing, often providing a performance increase benefit. At the other end is 

radical innovation, where breakthrough products are developed. Incremental 

innovation is often a lower-risk strategy intended to enhance value for existing 

customers. In telecommunications services, this is being witnessed in the higher 

maturity services like voice and data where the services are being optimized for 

better performance i.e. speeds, whilst radical innovation is a high-risk strategy 

often seen in new services which are intended to enter or create new markets 

(Pisano, 2015) i.e. next generation networks and virtualization.  

In the telecommunications sector, operators have had to meet the increased 

needs of customers such as high volumes and connectivity speeds, and also 

meet the needs of a wider customer base as telecommunications becomes an 

expected human right. There has thus been a need to develop new technologies 

to meet these needs. Factors that have been identified to influence the level of 

innovation include public policy, investment, infrastructure, culture, and a national 

innovation system that promotes inclusivity, and an efficient information flow 

amongst all actors that promotes knowledge and technology transfers (Bigliardi 

et al., 2012; Kosaroglu & Hunt, 2009).   

As organizations, nations, and individuals grapple with challenges, innovation is 

presenting itself as a new vehicle that can be leveraged to think differently about 

challenges by combining resources in new ways and finding solutions that create 

value. 

 

 

 

 



 
26 

2.2.1 Open Innovation  

Open Innovation is a strategic innovation model that has gained prominence in 

organizations, both private and public, as a means to accelerate innovation and 

extend an organization's innovation capabilities by externally seeking ideas, 

resources, and knowledge that can be incorporated into the firm’s innovation 

processes. The theory is defined as ‘the use of purposive inflows and outflows of 

knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and expand the markets for external 

use of innovation’ (Chesbrough, 2003). The concept is premised on the pragmatic 

acceptance that there are valuable resources not within the organization that the 

company may be able to leverage. Open innovation is a significant shift from 

traditional innovation models described as ‘closed innovation’ wherein the 

complete innovation process was contained within the firm from ideation to 

commercialization.  

Open Innovation as a concept and a widely accepted term gained prominence in 

management and academia from its popularisation by Chesbrough in 2003. Open 

innovation explains two main phenomena in the innovation processes namely: 

Intellectual property (IP) management processes – how companies produce, get, 

safeguard, and exploit intellectual property to their advantage in order to remain 

competitive. This process results in IP as a strategic asset for the organization 

that can be traded to generate revenues (i.e., trading underutilized assets, patent 

agreements, etc.) assets generate new knowledge assets over being only used 

as a defensive tool. Secondly, Innovation management processes – how 

organizations improve the innovation process through integrating internal and 

external information flows i.e. extending the innovation boundaries of the 

organization (Benezech, 2012). Open innovation can adopt an outside-in model 

where outsides are sourced from outside the organization and leveraged inside 

or internal ideas are leveraged outside allowing for innovations to be taken to 

market via various methods such as licensing, spin-offs, and offerings to existing 

customers (Chesbrough, 2003).  The image below is a diagram of the open 

innovation model by Henry Chesbrough (2003). 

 



 
27 

Figure 2: Open Innovation Model (Chesbrough, 2003) 

 

A similar, but varying concept of open innovation, is proposed by scholars such 

as von Hippel. It similarly advocates for external collaboration in order to enhance 

innovation but believes that this should be without regard to profit or protection of 

intellectual property to others. Open innovation is thus defined as innovations that 

have economic importance that are developed by users and other people by 

dividing the tasks, work,  and costs of development among each other, and as 

they do so they freely reveal and share their results (Von Hippel, 2014). While the 

definitions by Chesbrough and Von Hippel are different, they share the same core 

principle of leveraging external communities to enhance innovation.  

The criticism levied against the open innovation model is that it introduces 

additional organizational management complexity due to the need to manage 

multiple partners, including those outside the organization. This requires 

structures and communications that can span across and outside the boundaries 

of the organization effectively. In addition, open innovation introduces complexity 

in managing intellectual property, company information, and the flow of data 

which exposes the organization to potential patent liabilities of not being effective. 

An additional complexity cited is that of managing customers and service quality. 

As customers are collaboratively owned, there is a risk that they may receive poor 

customer experience from one partner, which tarnishes the brand of all 

associated partners (Grönlund et al., 2010). 

In the ICT sector within the region, open system models such as open innovation 

are considered as a way to fast-track the development of the sector through 



 
28 

knowledge transfers. Knowledge transfer refers to the movement of knowledge 

from one organization or individual to another. This can include skills, information, 

or expertise (Bacon et al., 2019; Su et al., 2019; Szulanski, 2000). Knowledge 

transfers can bridge the knowledge gap that exists between the developed Global 

North and the developing Global South and accelerate catch-up in the sector. 

Collaborations, especially with more developed economies that are strong in 

pioneering new and original innovation are cited as a critical enabler for ‘catch-

up’ and secondary innovation. Catch-up, which is a model from developing 

economies to catch-up to the incumbents in the developed nations, is premised 

on acquiring adequate knowledge and then exploiting a market opportunity to 

surpass the incumbents.  

Similarly, secondary innovation, which is an innovation that is based on 

developing something new or varied through adapting, modifying, and combining 

existing original innovations to address different needs and solve new problems 

(Wu et al., 2009), is based on acquiring adequate knowledge to allow further 

development. The knowledge acquisition process is a learning system that is 

achieved through learning processes such as learning by searching; learning by 

doing; learning by using; and learning by interacting.  

Whilst initially knowledge is gained using the original innovation from outside the 

country, in time, local actors begin to search for new ways to apply their 

knowledge and the original innovation leading to new knowledge generation and 

further development of original innovations (Lundvall, 1992). An Innovation 

System that has an effective movement of innovation amongst the actors 

becomes a cornerstone for technology transfers allowing for cross-sectoral 

information and knowledge generated to move from R&D stages to 

commercialization and value realization. Such a system enables technology 

transfer to happen more effectively by promoting collaboration between 

knowledge generators and knowledge users.  

Telecommunications organizations are pursuing open innovation because it 

provides opportunities to access a wider resource pool of skills, technologies, and 

knowledge and enhances interoperability. In addition, this strategy improves the 

ability of service integration which often spans multiple partners, platforms, and 



 
29 

regions and creates opportunities to explore more business models.  Various 

methods for collaborations have included crowdsourcing, creating online 

platforms, offering rewards for innovation, or co-creation partnerships. All these 

improve the rate and the quality of products and services. Open innovation should 

also be considered a risk management strategy as it reduces capital outlay and 

spreads it across multiple partners. 

2.3 Product development  

Products and services are responsible for generating the lion's share of most 

organization revenues, especially in the telecommunications sector. The product 

development process, also called New Product development (NPD), is the 

process of creating new products or services or improving existing products and 

services in order to meet customer needs and achieve the organization's strategic 

goals (Gupta et al., 2007; Kahn et al., 2013). Grönlund et al (2010), cite that one 

of the reasons why organizations fail to sustain a sufficient internal commitment 

to open innovation to realize its benefits is because of a failure to adapt their 

product development process to open innovation. 

Product development is responsible for ensuring that products developed within 

the organization are delivered timeously, are of high quality, meet the customer's 

needs, and provide a competitive advantage. These objectives have placed a 

focus on the importance of innovation within product development both at the 

process level (how products are developed) and at an output level (what products 

are developed). 

New Product Development entails identifying the customer need; developing a 

concept to meet the needs (market research, needs analysis, science, and 

technology research); developing the product (creativity, prototyping, market 

validation,); and commercializing (business model development, funding, 

production, marketing, customer support).  The figure below illustrates the 

common stages in a product development process (Cooper, 2014; Goffin & 

Mitchell, 2016; Grönlund et al., 2010; Kahn et al., 2013).  

 



 
30 

 

Figure 3: Common stages in the product development process 

 

 

To complete these steps a variety of skills is required, ranging from engineering, 

design, and marketing, to sales. In many organizations, the process will therefore 

include multiple functions coordinated by a central product or project 

management office (Carbone, 2005). Over the past few decades, particularly 

from the 20th century organizations have understood the inextricability of the tight 

coupling of the various functions and their impact on the overall delivery of 

services to customers. In response, they have had to develop capabilities on how 

to effectively manage and coordinate these interactions and drive effectiveness 

and efficiencies amongst the various functions. 

A key role in managing a coordinating this process is product development. 

Product managers play a crucial role in product development, driving the success 

of a product throughout its lifecycle. This function bridges the gap between 

stakeholders, such as customers, development teams, and executives, to ensure 

the product meets market needs and aligns with the company's strategic goals. 

Product managers define product strategy, gather the product requirements, 

manage the product portfolio, prioritize features, execute the product roadmap, 

and coordinate the cross-functional teams in the development process, ultimately 

contributing to the success of the product and the organization  (Cagan, 2017; 

Haines, 2014). 

Idea generation 

• Identificaion 
of a need 
and 
generation 
of an idea

Concept 
development

• Refinement 
of an idea 
into a 
product. 
Leading to 
selection of 
a concept 
based on 
feasability 
and market 
factors 

Product 
development 

• Design and  
development 
of an idea 
into a 
tangible 
product or 
service 
prototype

Testing and 
validation 

• Testing of a 
product 
against 
design 
functionality, 
market 
feeback and 
refining 
basedon 
feedback

Commercialis
ation

• Scaling up 
production 
and 
engaging in 
market 
activities to 
provide and 
support the 
to the 
market 



 
31 

There are various product development methodologies many of which are based 

on various project management methodologies including Waterfall, Rapid 

Application Development, Scrum, Rational Unified Process, and Agile. The two 

dominant approaches are a traditional 'stage' approach such as the waterfall, or 

stage-gate model. This is a sequential approach to product development where 

each step in the development process must be completed before the next step 

can commence. i.e. gathering the requirements of a product, analyzing the 

requirements, designing the product, implementing, validating, and maintaining 

the product (Awad, 2005). The criticism levied against this approach is that it 

needs to be more responsive to the pace of the market, emphasizes 

documentation, and is rigid in its approach as it has clear delineations and steps 

that must be undertaken before the next can commence.  

Contemporary methods proposed are agile methodologies such as Extreme 

Programming, Lean development, Kanban, and Scrum. This is an iterative 

approach that promotes incremental development. Under this approach, the 

various stages can take place concurrently, the product development is also 

broken down into small increments that can be developed quickly and provided 

to the customer to get feedback before the complete product can be developed 

(Dingsøyr et al., 2012; Sutherland et al., 2001). Criticism of this approach is that 

it is not effective in large teams, is reliant on individual skills, and it has a poor 

documentation culture which may result in miscommunication (IARM, 2014; 

Walczak & Kuchta, 2013) 

Traditionally product development in organizations has taken place internally, 

wherein activities such as research, knowledge generation, development, and 

commercialization are the result of internal activities with little to no external 

information flows or collaboration. This approach has led to organizations 

developing a strong resource-based view approach leading to robust processes 

built with an internal focus and leveraging internal capabilities (Grönlund et al., 

2010). These closed product development processes, often termed ‘closed 

innovation’, are characterized by well-defined internal processes, dedicated R&D 

functions, clear lines of decision-making internally, and internal marketing 

functions. 



 
32 

2.3.1 Open Product development  

The challenge faced with these closed product processes is that they have not 

been geared for interaction with resources outside of the organization, which has 

led to the failure of open innovation in many organizations (Grönlund et al., 2010). 

Idea management - Under a closed product development process, ideas, and 

research are generated internally. In an open system, ideas flow bi-directionally. 

This process, described as the ‘fuzzy front end,’ must support ideas coming in 

from various external parties into the organization that the organization deems 

beneficial (Goffin & Mitchell, 2016) and also enables ideas to filter out that the 

organization believes could better be suited for exploitation externally 

(Chesbrough, 2003; Grönlund et al., 2010). A benefit widely cited for open 

innovation is that it increases the quantity and diversity of ideas and widens the 

pool of opportunities that the organization may not have been aware of, and also 

allows organizations to profit from ideas through other parties. However, a 

challenge cited against open innovation is that additional complexity is introduced 

in managing a high volume of ideas and the associated intellectual property rights 

of ideas (Arrigo, 2018; Grönlund et al., 2010). 

Product development and portfolio management - Product development and 

portfolio management entail selecting the right combination of products to 

maximize value and best support the strategic objectives and supporting these 

with the right resources (Kahn et al., 2013; Meifort, 2016). In a closed 

development process, resources, and combination products are those within the 

boundaries of the organization. In an open environment, this requires managing 

a collation of products and resources that do not always reside within the 

organization and include a number of external parties. A benefit of open 

innovation is that products can be developed with shared costs, knowledge, and 

resources of other parties, and products can leverage combinations of products 

outside the organization. A further benefit is the knowledge spillovers and 

knowledge transfers that take place when collaborating with external parties that 

service in order to increase the capabilities of the product teams (Bacon et al., 

2019). However, a challenge cited against open innovation is that this requires 



 
33 

different complex contractual agreements, and business models to drive returns 

and diverse lines of liabilities (Grönlund et al., 2010).    

Product Commercialisation – Product development entails undertaking 

activities to develop and support a market. This includes scaling up production to 

support demand, marketing and creating demand for the product, and supporting 

customers within the product (Kahn et al., 2013). In closed product development, 

these activities are supported by the organization's own resources. In open 

innovation, organizations co-market products, pool investment to scale products, 

and collaboratively support customers to increase their reach.  Another benefit 

cited in open innovation is that leveraging multi-stakeholder collaboration 

supports better product diffusion and market adoption, which increases product 

uptake and sustainability in the market. However, a challenge cited against open 

innovation is that there are increased complexities in management and customer 

integration and that there is a loss of control of quality and customer support 

which may result in reputational damage (Grönlund et al., 2010; Mortara et al., 

2010).   

For industries that require a large amount of standardization across an 

organization such as telecommunications, closed product innovation and 

development processes have been criticized because they lead to the 

development of standards that are not interoperable, which increases user costs. 

They also lead to duplication of R&D costs as organizations research in silos. 

Ultimately this slows down the overall rate of sectoral innovation (Forbes et al., 

2011; Gupta et al., 2007). A consequence of this is the intervention of regulatory 

and standardization bodies to facilitate cross-collaboration from various actors. 

This lack of open collaboration from large organizations has become a 

considerable public policy debate due to its impact on the future of the digital 

economy e.g., user costs, monitoring, and oversight, Collaborative product 

development in varying degrees is seemingly a process that cannot be entirely 

avoided in the sector. 

A challenge faced by the product development functions is balancing the need 

for innovation, the efficiencies within the process (costs vs profits), and the 

competitiveness of their products.  To overcome some of these challenges, 



 
34 

product development teams are starting to increasingly encompass more 

external information flows and collaborations to accelerate product development.  

2.4 Organizational Culture 

Scholars largely agree that the successful execution of any strategy within an 

organization is heavily influenced by the culture of the organization (Beitsch & 

Moran, 2014; Cameron & Quinn; Hofstede et al., 1991; Kieser, 1994). Failure to 

pay attention to organizational culture has been identified as one of the leading 

drivers of failed organizational change initiatives (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). As 

organizations globally seek to change and adopt innovation strategies, the 

subject of the influence of culture has become increasingly important.  

Scholars have found that organizational culture is a critical factor in how groups 

form a collective identity amongst themselves, additionally how organizational 

culture creates predictability and uniformity in how the groups address external 

challenges and respond to problems.  For business, this has led to the realization 

that positive organizational culture results in increased employee motivation, 

higher levels of engagement, higher financial performance, increased creativity 

and innovation, higher employee retention, and more effective communication 

(Beitsch & Moran, 2014; Cameron & Quinn; Kieser, 1994).  

Hofstede (1998) referred to organizational culture as ‘the collective programming 

of the mind’; under this definition, the focus was on the collective cognitive 

assimilation of the minds within a group of people. Schein (1998) described 

organizational culture as a 'pattern of shared basic assumptions, a definition 

which focuses on how groups evolve to form a uniform understanding and 

interpretation of the world around them. Cameron & Quinn (2006) cite that 

organizational culture reflects the prevailing ideologies amongst people that 

convey the people's identity and guidelines for their behaviours ‘It reflects the 

ideology people carry inside their heads.’ Organizational culture can therefore be 

described as shared belief systems formed among groups that evolve, informing 

their behaviors and how they respond to the world.  



 
35 

Edgar Schein's framework (1992) is a widely accepted model for understanding 

organizational culture and it asserts that culture is a multi-dimensional construct 

that must be understood on three levels which include constructs that are both 

visible and invisible. The three levels are artifacts, espoused values, and 

underlying assumptions.  Artifacts are the first and most visible layer. This outer 

layer can be reflected by the organization's structure, language, dress, rituals, 

and organizational space. Espoused values are the second level and are often 

reported by management as core to the organization and often reflected in 

strategies, principles, and codes of conduct. The third level, underlying 

assumptions, involves deeply ingrained beliefs that dictate daily work practices 

(Schein, 1992). The figure below figure depicts the organizational culture model 

by Schein.  

Figure 4: Adaptation of Schein (1992) Organization Culture model 

 

Values are described as deeply embedded standards for discerning what is good 

and just in society (Little et al., 2014). Rokeach's influential definition 

characterizes values as enduring beliefs about preferable modes of conduct or 

existence (Rokeach, 1973). Gamage emphasizes values as virtues reflecting 

inner realities, influencing habits, behaviors, and attitudes (Gamage et al., 2021).  

Values, in both descriptive and normative functions, relate closely to ethics and 

morality. Descriptively, values characterize individuals or develop meaning in 

specific contexts, while normatively, they inform ideals and objectives, whether 

considered timeless and universal or relative and contextual (Askeland, 2020). 

Values therefore serve as fundamental guiding principles shaping decisions, 

Artifacts

Espoused Values

Underlying 
Assumptions

Visible attributes such as the 
organisations structures and 

processes

The Stated values such as 
strategies, goals, philosophies

The beliefs held to be true by 
the people

Visible

Invisible 



 
36 

actions, and interactions with the world and are crucial for formulating and 

transmitting beliefs and culture (Askeland, 2020; Cameron & Quinn, 2006; 

Schein, 1992). 

Beliefs are described as principles or convictions that people hold to be true (Little 

et al., 2014). They are fundamental convictions about events, causes, agency, 

and objects that people use and accept as true (Connors & Halligan, 2015). 

Beliefs are fundamental aspects of human cognition that shape understanding of 

the world. They form the deeply rooted underlying assumptions of culture are 

often enduring, unquestioned representations of the world that are 

psychologically held (Connors & Halligan, 2015; Richardson, 1996). 

Beliefs can formulate without absolute proof, knowledge, or rationality and can 

also formulate below the awareness level of people due to the rapid speed of the 

nervous system. Linked to organizational culture, beliefs are a primary attribute 

influencing decision-making and employee engagement (Connors & Halligan, 

2015; Seitz & Angel, 2020),  

Schneider emphasizes that organizational culture is a complex multifaceted 

phenomenon and references Schein’s framework to demonstrate this arguing 

that while artifacts may be highly visible and look the same they can be 

ambiguous in terms of understanding and the underlying meaning to people, that 

values whilst espoused may not align with the reality experienced by people and 

that underlying assumptions may be so deeply ingrained that can be hard to 

articulate or identify without tools like in-depth interviews (Schneider et al., 2016). 

Scholars have also identified that culture is not always positive and that within 

organizations a negative or toxic culture can develop. Consequences of these 

types of negative cultures can be poor morale, increased levels of non-

compliance, resistance to change, and a high churn rate. Alvesson (2002) 

describes six types of organizational cultures that can be detrimental to an 

organizations effectiveness and limit the organization's rate of innovation. These 

include anonymity, a culture where individuals feel invisible, and lack a sense of 

identity within the organization; conformity, a culture where there is strong 

pressure on individuals to conform to norms; politicization, a culture where the 



 
37 

organization is dominated by policy and authority; silos, a culture where 

departments operate separately, each pursuing goals without collaborating; and 

inertia, a culture where there is high resistance to change and adaptation. 

Unhealthy competition, is a culture that is excessively competitive and fosters 

internal competition that impedes growth (Alvesson, 2012). Toxic cultures can 

hinder the effective flow of information and trust, ultimately compromising the 

organization’s objectives.  

Several scholars have done significant work investigating the factors or 

dimensions that make up culture, supported by a variety of frameworks to enable 

the understanding and assessment of culture. Prominent works, including their 

cultural dimensions have included (see Table 1):  

Table 1: Organizational Culture Models 

 

These studies have revealed that culture is a multi-dimensional concept that 

includes a variety of attributes.  In the interpretation of the organizational culture 

Alveson (2012) cites that practitioners and scholars should avoid common pits 

that include treating culture as though it is a simple physical good; describing 

cultures as a few simple attributes or taking a wide view of culture and including 

everything as culture;  consensualizing culture and thinking that culture means 

unity and alignment, defining culture in terms of formal or legal boundaries 



 
38 

(Alvesson, 2012); and idealizing culture which is viewing it as a construct devoid 

of this social and environmental surroundings. 

Culture manifests at multiple levels which include intangible elements such as 

beliefs and values and tangible elements such as artifacts and structures. Culture 

is not static: within any organization at any given time, there are competing 

cultures within an organization that manifest themselves based on the context. 

In an environment, where there is a high diversity of belief systems, structures, 

and environments, culture becomes increasingly complex and harder to manage 

(Bigliardi et al., 2012; Gupta et al., 2007). 

2.4.1 Innovation Culture 

An innovation culture is a culture that encourages the appropriate behaviours that 

give people ownership of the innovation efforts (Goffin & Mitchell, 2016). It is 

described as a behaviour of shared creativity within groups that benefits not only 

the individual but the group and the wider society (Hanifah et al., 2017). When 

successfully nurtured, an innovation culture creates an environment in which 

there is a strong shared belief that creativity is not only limited to leaders or a 

select group of people but that everyone in the organization is welcome to identify 

methods and ways of doing things both differently and better. 

A culture that breeds innovative behaviours is underpinned by psychological 

safety for the employees. This is a shared belief by an employee or those within 

a team that it is safe to take risks. This is a strong belief that it is safe to come up 

with ideas, to ask questions, or to raise concerns with our fear of negative 

consequences (Baer & Frese, 2003; Edmondson, 1999; Klajkó et al., 2020). 

Psychological safety enables open communication and improves the flow of 

information and trust among people; it further promotes learning by removing the 

barriers to knowledge acquisition. Ultimately, it promotes risk-taking, which has 

been identified as critical for innovation.  



 
39 

In telecommunications services where there is a high rate of technology change, 

innovation culture is vital for creating an environment that enables solution-

finding, creativity, risk-taking, and exploration across the organization.  

To assess and measure innovation culture, Dobni (2008) identifies four 

dimensions of innovation culture, namely intention for innovation, infrastructure 

for innovation, market orientation, and implementation. The factors signify that 

innovation culture is a multidimensional and contextual (Dobni, 2008) and that 

successful innovation culture is characterized by shared competencies and open 

communication flows across organizational functions. Similar attributes are 

identified by Johansson Alm (2014), namely innovation readiness, creativity and 

learning, leadership, entrepreneurship, market orientation, motivation, and 

relations (Johansson Alm & Jönsson, 2014). In an open culture, these exchanges 

are extended to external members of the value chain (Kratzer et al., 2017).  

Table 2 below summarises the Innovation cultural dimensions identified by Dobni 

(2008). 

Table 2: Innovation Culture dimensions (Dobni, 2008) 

 

Convergences in the literature broadly describe an innovative organization 

culture as one that is deliberate about innovation which could be observed 

through strategies, plans, and values. An organization that develops structures 

that enable innovation could include learning systems, processes, resource 



 
40 

allocation, and systems that enhance the free flow of information and transactions 

that support innovation. An organization that has a market orientation is highly 

attuned to customers and other actors in the value chain. This could be observed 

through the understanding of the market and the presence of strategies geared 

towards achieving a solid market position. An organization that has leadership 

and management that promote innovation could be observed through leadership 

styles, power dynamics, reward systems, and the degree of autonomy employees 

are given and an implementation context that delivers value through its efforts 

(Cameron & Quinn; Dobni, 2008; Johansson Alm & Jönsson, 2014). 

2.4.2 Open Innovation Culture 

The International Standard of Innovation ISO56002, the International Standards 

Organisation (ISO) states that the innovation capabilities of an organization 

include the ability to collaborate with external parties and that a culture must be 

created that supports co-existence and creative operations to enable innovation 

(ISO, 2019). As organizations increasingly look to external sources to participate 

in innovation activities, there is an increased need to develop organizational 

culture that nurtures external collaborations leading to enhancement to the levels 

of innovation.  

Open Innovation Culture is a ‘learning process within organizations where 

successful answers or responses to environmental challenges are accepted as 

basic assumptions and norms and transferred to the organization's set of 

assumptions and norms’ (Nestle et al., 2019). Within product development, open 

Innovation Culture can be described as the shared mindset and practices 

adopted by the organization to actively seek out, incorporate, and build in external 

ideas and resources into the organization's product development process. Such 

a culture is collaborative, adaptable, and flexible. 

Several cultural issues that impede open innovation have been identified, such 

as a lack of trust amongst the partners, weak structures to manage the flow of 

ideas and internal resistance. Some of the causes of fear within employees 

include fear of loss of power or position, while some of the concerns for 

organizations include risk of loss of IP or failure to benefit from collaborations and 



 
41 

low tolerance of risk (Mortara et al., 2010).  Additionally, firms can have a bias 

towards external knowledge, this is referred to as the Not Invented Here (NIH) 

syndrome, which is a resistance towards external knowledge and is described as 

a tendency or attitude of rejecting information, resources, or products not 

developed internally, citing reasons such as concerns of quality, IP infringement, 

or not acknowledging value, etc. Another version of this is the Not Sold Here 

(NSH) syndrome, which is the resistance toward sharing internal knowledge. This 

is described as a tendency not to share knowledge because of a fear of losing a 

competitive advantage. Both these cultural attributes can effectively hinder the 

flow of knowledge in open systems and prohibit open innovation. (Amann & 

Granström, 2019; Chesbrough, 2010; de Araújo Burcharth et al., 2014). As 

innovation within the organization can be considered a function of learning and 

new knowledge creation (Andersson et al., 2020), such attitudes and beliefs 

regarding information sharing can hinder successful innovation. 

In telecommunications products and services, there is a large degree of 

collaboration with multiple suppliers, partners, and customers, all of which are 

distributed globally. As a result, culture has been identified as a critical factor in 

the effectiveness of innovation in product development.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
42 

2.5 Summary of Literature Review  

The literature review indicates that organizations in telecommunications and the 

wider ICT sector are looking to innovation as a strategic tool to improve 

competitiveness and meet customer needs and that at a national government 

level, innovation is being considered a means for achieving national goals of 

economic growth and development. Innovation is described as the process of 

creating new or improving products, services, processes, or business models that 

create value (Fagerberg, 2004; Gault, 2018; Nelson & Rosenberg, 1993). 

Innovation can be both tangible i.e. products or intangible i.e. processes and can 

be small i.e. Incremental or big i.e. breakthrough. Innovation has become an 

imperative for governments and organizations in order to accelerate economic 

growth and drive economic development. For innovation to thrive, there is a 

requirement for a network of diverse actors to engage, share information, and 

collaborate in order to stimulate innovation, generate knowledge, fund innovation 

development, and diffuse innovations. This National Innovation system 

influences the rate of innovation in a country's (Lundvall, 1992; OECD, 1997). 

Developing economies have been found to have weak and loose connections 

among these actors who include government, universities, and businesses 

(Chaminade et al., 2018; Padilla-Perez et al., 2009). 

To achieve their strategic goals, telecommunications organizations are pursuing 

various innovation models. One such model that is gaining prominence is Open 

Innovation (Bigliardi et al., 2012; Birudavolu & Nag, 2011).  Open innovation is 

described as a distributed innovation model that incorporates external ideas and 

resources to enhance the organization's product development processes 

(innovation processes) (Chesbrough, 2003). Many operators around the world 

are increasingly adopting this model as a way of enhancing their innovation 

processes. Open innovation can be inside-out i.e. internal ideas and resources 

going out or outside-in i.e. external ideas coming into the organisation.  

Value creation can be achieved via a multitude of methods, including, licensing 

agreements, spin-offs, and various other business models. There is a branch 

within the open innovation paradigm that adopts open-source principles for open 

innovation. This branch adopts the view that open innovation is collaborative 



 
43 

innovation that involves a number of parties outside the organization. The 

innovation generated should, however, be free to all users with no intellectual 

property protection. Under this view, all knowledge is freely accessible to 

everyone, and value is based on the utilization or consumption of collective 

innovation. In developing economies, open innovation has been strongly cited as 

a way to assist the countries to achieve economic catch-up with the rest of the 

world through knowledge transfers and knowledge spill overs from the incumbent 

developed countries that have pioneered the innovations. Such a situation is also 

deemed to contribute to secondary innovation, where developing economies, 

through learning, can further innovate original innovation by combining them with 

indigenous resources and solving local problems. Open innovation also 

enhances the diffusion of innovations by bridging the gap between creators and 

consumers.  Innovation is an important part of product development which 

ensures that organisation continue to deliver products and services that enhance 

customer and organizational value. 

Product development, also known as New Product Development (NPD), is the 

process of creating new products or services to meet customer needs and 

achieve the strategic goals of the organization. The process of developing 

products involves identifying customer needs, developing a concept, developing 

the product, and commercializing it. Common stages in a product development 

process include engineering, design, marketing, and sales. Various product 

development methodologies have been developed in order to manage those 

processes and drive efficiencies such as Waterfall, Rapid Application 

Development, Scrum, Rational Unified Process, and Agile, which have been 

developed to drive efficiencies and coordination among various functions. 

Traditional 'stage' approaches, such as waterfall and stage-gate models, have 

been criticized for being rigid, and reliant on individual skills and therefore not 

being responsive to market needs. New agile methods, such as Scrum, Lean, 

Kanban, and Extreme Programming, are purported to be responsive as they 

promote incremental development and allow for concurrent stages to take place. 

A key role in the process is the product managers who are responsible for 

managing the product throughout its lifecycle, including defining the roadmap, 



 
44 

managing the portfolio, and coordinating cross-functional teams to ensure 

successful product delivery.  

Traditionally, product development has occurred internally within the 

organization, this approach has led to a strong resource-based view, leading to 

robust internal processes built with an internal focus and leveraging internal 

capabilities in order to develop products. These closed product development 

processes, also known as ‘closed innovation’, are characterized by well-defined 

internal processes, dedicated R&D functions, clear decision-making lines, and 

internal marketing functions. These existing processes have been criticized for 

their inability to support open innovation, which requires collaboration and 

interactions outside the organization’s control and resource base, including 

managing ideas from outside the organizations and filtering out ideas outside the 

organization, levering resources outside the control of the organization and 

commercializing a product with resources outside the organization. 

A key contributing factor to the success of open innovation is organizational 

culture, in particular the subset of innovation culture (Bigliardi et al., 2012; 

Birudavolu & Nag, 2011).  The literature describes innovation culture (a subset 

of organizational culture) as shared values, attitudes, behaviours, and practices 

in an organization that support and promote innovation (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; 

Dobni, 2008; Schein, 1974). Culture is a multifaceted and complex concept. The 

management of culture within telecommunications product development is 

complicated by the distributed nature of the sector (multi-sector, multi-geography, 

multi-partner). Cultural dimensions that are identified to be supportive of open 

innovation include a shared value system that reflects a positive belief toward 

external collaborations; an innovation infrastructure that enables external 

collaborations; a flexible market orientation that empowers employees and is 

focused on creating value for customers; and an innovation context that 

leverages external collaborations to create value. 

An Open Innovation Culture is described as a shared mindset and practices 

that are adopted by the organization to actively seek out, incorporate, and build 

in external ideas and resources into the organization's product development 

process. An optimal open innovation culture creates an environment in which 



 
45 

employees feel empowered and capacitated to be creative and to pursue 

innovative activities that leverage resources outside the boundaries of the 

organization in order to create value that benefits the employees, the 

organization, and the wider society.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
46 

2.6 Conceptual framework 

The conceptual framework in Figure 5 below is based on the existing body of 

literature and indicates how the research problem will be explored. The 

framework provides the innovation culture dimensions identified in the literature 

review. This is further broken down into the sub-factors (constructs) that 

contribute to the cultural dimension. The measure for each dimension is further 

specified to clearly indicate how the factor will be evaluated in the research. 

The research will seek to determine how the organization's open innovation 

culture contributes to product innovation and how it can be leveraged to enhance 

product innovation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
47 

Figure 5: Research conceptual framework 

 

 



 
48 

Table 3 below summarizes the relationship between the literature and the 

innovation culture dimensions identified for the research which are found to 

have an impact towards open innovation on product development. 

Table 3: Innovation Culture dimension aligned to theory base. 

# Culture Dimension Theory base  

1. Values 
• Underlying beliefs, principles and convictions that employees 

hold to be true (Connors & Halligan, 2015; Little et al., 2014; 
Seitz & Angel, 2020) 

• Deep seated and shared basic assumptions by employees 
that (Dobni, 2008; Schein, 1974) 

• Espoused Organizational values (Dobni, 2008; Schein, 1974) 

2 Orientation 
• Market orientation, an external focus towards differentiation & 

competition as opposed to internal integration & unity 
(Büschgens et al., 2013; Cameron & Quinn, 2006) 

• Adaptability, an emphasis on flexibility & dynamism as 
opposed to stability & control  

• Adhocratic-market culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2006) 

3 Infrastructure 
• Organisational structure and strategies designed to promote 

and enhance innovation (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Dobni, 
2008)  

• Structure and processes that enable external collaborations 
(Bigliardi et al., 2012)  

4 Implementation 
• Ability conceptualize, plan and conduct deliberate effort of 

planned activity evidenced by outcome (Pfadenhauer et al., 
2015). 

• Usage external collaborations for ideas & resources in the 
product development process (Chesbrough, 2003; Gupta et 
al., 2007) 

• Product innovation enters the markets in various ways 
(Chesbrough, 2007; Chesbrough, 2003) 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
49 

2.7 Statement of propositions 

From the literature review, four propositions have been developed based on the 

key cultural dimensions.  

Proposition 1 [values] 

Telecommunications organizations that practice open innovation have shared 

beliefs by employees that are supportive of external collaborations and 

organizational values that are supportive of external collaborations 

Proposition 2 [orientation] 

Telecommunications organizations that practice open innovation have an 

orientation that is focused on the market and internal processes that are 

adaptable   

Proposition 3 [infrastructure] 

Telecommunications organizations that practice open innovation have internal 

structures and processes that are enabling for innovation and external 

collaborations. 

Proposition 4 [implementation context] 

Telecommunications organizations that practice open innovation leverage 

external collaborations to enhance product innovation. 

 

Table 4 below shows the relationship between the research question and the 

proposition and specifies how the research findings will be discussed. 

 

 

 



 
50 

Table 4: Proposition and research questions relationships  
Proposition Research Question 1 Research question 2 Research question 3 
 

Is there an existence of 
innovation culture dimensions 
that motivate the success of 
open innovation within South 
African telecommunications 
product development? 

What is the relative 
importance of the innovation 
culture dimensions within 
South African 
telecommunications product 
development? 

Are there recommendations for 
the industry that could improve 
the success of open innovation 
within South African 
telecommunications product 
development? 

Proposition 1: [values] Telecommunications 
organizations that practice open innovation have 
shared beliefs by employees that are supportive of 
external collaborations and organizational values 
that are supportive of external collaborations 

• Alignment of individual 
beliefs,  

• Direction of individual beliefs 

Based on the implementation, 
what is the impact of these 
cultural dimension on external 
collaborations? 

Priority ranking and 
recommendations 

Proposition 2 [orientation] Telecommunications 
organizations that practice open innovation have an 
orientation that is focused on the market and internal 
processes that are adaptable   

• Market orientation of product 
development  

• Adaptability pf product 
development processes 

Based on the implementation, 
what is the impact of these 
cultural dimension on external 
collaborations? 

Priority ranking and 
recommendations 

Proposition 3 [infrastructure]Telecommunications 
organizations that practice open innovation have 
internal structures & processes that are enabling for 
innovation and external collaborations. 

• Innovation management 
processes in product 
development  

• Collaboration processes in 
product development  

Based on the implementation, 
what is the impact of these 
cultural dimension on external 
collaborations? 

Priority ranking and 
recommendations 

Proposition 4 [implementation context] 
Telecommunications organizations that practice open 
innovation leverage external collaborations to 
enhance product innovation 

• Sources of ideas in product 
development  

• Types of partnerships in 
product development  

Based on the implementation, 
what is the impact of these 
cultural dimension on external 
collaborations? 

Priority ranking and 
recommendations 



 
51 

2.8 Summary of chapter 

The research highlighted that achieving organizational goals and promoting 

economic growth both depend on innovation. An organization's ability to innovate 

can be accelerated by open innovation, which encourages partnerships with 

parties outside the organization and makes use of their knowledge and resource 

bases. 

Organizations can therefore improve their products and services through open 

innovation by choosing the best internal and external ideas that can be more 

effectively used externally. 

In order for open innovation to succeed, the organizational culture must be 

supportive. Such a culture upholds the proper values towards external 

collaborations, has a sufficient infrastructure, is aware of the market, and works 

well with outside parties to deliver value to customers and stakeholders. 

The literature review produced a conceptual framework to assist in navigating the 

research problem and four research propositions to assist in answering the 

research question. 

 



 
52 

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

3.1 Research Design 

The framework that a researcher uses to collect information and analyse the 

information is referred to as the research design (Malhotra et al., 2017). The 

research design adopted must suit the nature of the research and research 

environment and must enable the researcher to respond to the research problem 

and objectives (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001).  

The purpose of the research is to understand how South African 

telecommunications operators can create organizational cultures that are 

enabling for Open Innovation within their product development. The research 

focuses on culture, which is a complex multidimensional research subject 

(Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Dobni, 2008; Schein, 1974). The research further 

investigates the construct in a very particular environment and region in which an 

analysis of the existing literature in the area indicates that there is very limited 

prior research. As a result, the nature of the research is exploratory. According to 

Malhotra and Birks (2017), exploratory research should be carried out on a 

problem or research area when there is little to no knowledge about the problem, 

and there has been no comprehensive research done on the problem. This type 

of research allows the researcher to discover new insights that improve the 

understating of the topic (Malhotra et al., 2017).  

The limited information and the complexity of the research problem require that 

information be gathered primarily from participants involved mainly in the 

research areas. The research design will be qualitative and non-experimental. 

This research design is chosen as the objective of the research is to gain an in-

depth and meaningful understanding of the impact of Open Innovation culture on 

product development within the telecommunications sector in South Africa.   

This research design is also chosen as it enables the researcher to have a much 

deeper exploration of the perceptions and experiences of the participants and will 

allow the researcher to identify key and comment elements on the research 

subject. This type of design enables the researcher to probe specific areas 



 
53 

related to the factors of research in order to gain a higher level of clarity. These 

factors will provide direction on areas of improvement and future areas of 

research. 

The foundation of the research will be based on a systematic analysis of the 

available literature on the research. This will create the basis of the analysis for 

the perceptions of innovation within the firm. 

3.2 Data collection methods 

The primary means of gathering data for the research was interviews. The 

interview method creates a complete and clearer picture of the research subject 

when conducting exploratory research (Saunders et al., 2012). The benefits of 

interviews include flexibility, more control, more detail, and a higher return rate, 

while challenges include more time to conduct, inefficient for high participant 

volume, and is susceptible to biases from the interviewer (Mouton, 2011).  

Leveraging the literature review conducted, a semi-structured interview guide 

was developed to ensure consistency and comparability of the responses 

(Creswell, 2018). Semi-structured interviews provide a common framework for 

the research areas while also allowing the flexibility of respondents to share 

personal experiences for each of the research areas (Mouton, 2011). The 

interview guide compromised open-ended questions, which allowed participants 

to express their views, opinions, and feelings in a meaningful and detailed 

manner. Through probing and prompts, the researcher is able to gather more 

detailed information regarding a specific research area (Braun & Clarke, 2019). 

The data was collected in one-to-one interviews conducted via a video 

conferencing platform. All interview subjects gave their full and unambiguous 

agreement for all interviews to be recorded. All interviews were recorded with the 

full explicit consent of the participants. Interviews were later transcribed using 

video conferencing software and validated by the researcher to ensure the 

accuracy of data.  Prior to the interviews participants were notified of their right to 

stop the interview should they feel uncomfortable and were also given the 

opportunity to ask questions relating to the research purpose and objectives. All 



 
54 

recordings and transcriptions were encrypted and stored securely. The 

transcriptions saved did not contain any personally identifiable information. 

This secondary data collection method was a systematic review of the literature 

related to the subject. This literature base included academic journals and 

industry reports. This method enabled the researcher to identify the critical 

variables for the areas of research as well as extend the literature base that 

already exists (Mouton, 2011). 

3.3 Population and sample 

A critical part of research is ensuring that the sample is a true and accurate 

reflection of the population as this enables the researcher to generalize and 

extend the findings to similar contexts (Mouton, 2011). Where a population is 

large and heterogeneous, a larger sample is required to maintain the research 

validity. 

Based on the size of the organization and the core function, and roles within the 

product development, a non-probability sampling technique was selected, 

specifically purposive sampling. Purposive sampling method used is based on a 

sample's ability to most accurately reflect the characteristics required to find 

answers in the research (Silverman, 2013). The research sample included 

primarily participants who are directly involved in the area of study. This also 

included all operational levels across all product offices within the organization. 

This selection ensured a fair representation of the population. 

The population of the sample was the organization's product management and 

innovation office team, which comprises 40 product managers across multiple 

product portfolios and three innovation managers. The research sample 

comprised 25 participants, including three innovation managers and 22 product 

managers from across the organization. The size was considered to be 

appropriate for the research project as it allowed for a detailed exploration of the 

participant's experiences and views relating to the subject. Table 5 below lists the 

research participants included in the study. 



 
55 

Table 5: Research participants 

# Business Unit Level 
1 Innovation Management Senior Leader 

2 Innovation Management Senior Manager 

3 Innovation Management Senior Leader 

4 Consumer Products Manager 

5 Business Products  Manager 

6 Consumer Products Manager 

7 Consumer Products Manager 

8 Financial Products Manager 

9 Business Products  Manager 

10 Financial Products Manager 

11 Financial Products Manager 

12 Consumer Products Manager 

13 Financial Products Manager 

14 Business Products  Manager 

15 Consumer Products Senior Manager 

16 Consumer Products Manager 

17 Business Products  Senior Leader 

18 Business Products  Manager (jnr) 

19 Consumer Products Senior Manager 

20 Consumer Products Manager (jnr) 

21 Consumer Products Senior Leader 

22 Financial Products Senior Leader 

23 Financial Products Senior Manager 

24 Financial Products Manager 

25 Business Products  Senior Manager 

26 Financial Products Manager 

To ensure that the sample represented all within the functions in the organization 

who are responsible for product development and innovation management, it 

included the innovation management office, the consumer product office, the 

business product office, and the financial services office. The financial services 

office structure office operates as a stand-alone office with its own management 

structure and resources but is able to leverage the resources within the consumer 

and business office. The unit was established as a stand-alone in order to 

accelerate product development. The business unit composition included 35% 



 
56 

(9) of consumer products. This is the organisation's largest revenue-generating 

function, 31% (8) of financial products, 23% (6) of Business products, and 11% 

(3) of innovation management, this is the business unit responsible for developing 

the organization innovation strategy and coordinating the innovation program. 

Refer to Figure 6 below. 

Figure 6: Research sample business unit type 

 

To ensure that that sample represented all levels within the organization that are 

responsible for product development and innovation management, it included 

senior leaders responsible for developing the organization's high-level strategies 

and managers responsible for developing the organization's tactical strategies 

and managing the business operations. The sample comprised on 19% (5) senior 

leaders, 19% (5) senior managers, 54% (14) managers, and 8% (2) junior 

managers. Refer to Figure 7