The second level of the innovation maturity model is represented by organisations that respond to various needs, followed by proactive innovators. Finally, the highest level of maturity is represented by organisations that have clear and well-structured innovation processes in place in all areas and business lines. It should be noted, however, that maturity models reflect the traditional view of innovation, which considers research and development activities as the starting point. Although this is not the most up-to-date perspective, maturity models can be of considerable help to businesses in assessing their innovation capabilities and processes and in identifying measures to enhance their performance.

Quite a few organisations struggle to figure out how to best build their innovation processes and try to increase their innovation maturity. Many of these ambitious companies fall into one of the traps described above and base their innovation activities on research and development or activities related to innovation theatre.

To avoid these pitfalls, a maturity model that can be applied in practice is needed to effectively support companies' innovation transformation. The models available in the scientific literature are mostly based on theoretical considerations, so we present the framework of the Finnish company Viima, which specialises in developing the innovation processes of global companies and introducing related digital solutions. According to data from market research company Gartner, this is one of the most widely used innovation management software programmes in Western countries. In simple terms, the model aims to present the difference between those who are successful in innovation and those who are not in an easily understandable way. Experience shows that innovation performance is ultimately determined by two variables: maturity and scale. The most successful innovators combine these two factors.

Before presenting the typical types of companies at different levels of innovation maturity, it is important to point out how important the innovation capacity and actual activity of the entire organisation is in the case of innovative companies. It is not a question of creating a department that will generate various innovation projects while the rest can sit back and relax. Corporate experience has shown that such "innovation silos" do not live up to expectations, because innovation activities must be pursued by all departments with full steam and enthusiasm.

However, it does matter what type of innovation is worth pursuing at what level of maturity. In the case of Google, the 70-20-10 rule mentioned earlier states that 70 per cent of innovation efforts and investments should be directed towards perfecting the company's core business, 20% on further developing them, and about 10% on transformative initiatives that will have a major impact on the future operation of the business. This is a rule of thumb that large companies in particular need to pay attention to, and it is easy to see that 90 per cent of innovation efforts should be focused on existing products, services and processes. It would be simply impossible to achieve these innovation goals if management entrusted all development to a separate innovation unit, as it would not be able to work on them effectively. Thus, the vast majority of innovation projects must take place on multiple fronts within the organisation rather than in an innovation silo. However, these innovation silos can play a distinguished role in working on transformational initiatives that involve radical developments beyond the company's current product and service portfolio, as they are not constrained by existing processes and working methods within the organisation. Innovation projects of this type can deliver breakthrough results if they operate separately from the activities related to the company's core operations and production facilities.