ntegration of SM&O software Horizontal integration of RM&O software These scenarios are compared based on the change in the system modularity they bring, as compared with "no integration" scenario. The resulting system modularity values are shown in Table 1. The first row in the table corresponds to the null scenario, denoted as "None," where no integration is assumed. Note that only the modules with multiple dependencies (i.e., Pn>2) are integrated. As can be seen from the table, the greatest increase in system modularity is achieved in the case of the Horizontal-CRM integration scenario. The Vertical- Assurance, Horizontal-RMO, and Vertical-Billing scenarios also provide a noticeable improvement in modularity. The Vertical-OS&R scenario and the Horizontal-SM&O scenario (which roughly equals to introduction of a SDP/SDF) introduce the least increase in modularity, while the Vertical-Fulfillment scenario gives an even lower modularity (and therefore greater complexity) than the "no integration" scenario. This suggests that the three latter scenarios are less likely, Table 1 Comparing Integration strategy Best modularity index (only modules integration scenarios in terms with Pn >2 are integrated) of system modularity 0.7058 Vertical - fulfillment 0.7007 Vertical - assurance 0.7172 Vertical - billing 0.7109 Vertical - OS&R 0.7097 Horizontal - CRM 0.7494 Horizontal - SM&O 0.7081 Horizontal - RM&O 0.7111 O. Mazhelis and P. Tyrväinen since they are less likely to bring benefits in innovation potential to the organiza- tions following them. Integrating CRM applications gave the greatest modularity improvement, due to the fact that the CRM applications are closely interrelated. These CRM applica- tions, which include customer management, order management, problem handling, customer SLA management, and billing and collections management, have a significant number of interdependencies. Therefore, innovating in either of these systems requires an organization to have a control over the other CRM applications, thus making 