Introduction
Successful companies take the concept of strategy seriously and implement the relevant changes to provide services and products that resonate with the demands of their respective customers. From the late 19th century, Kodak emerged and developed to become one of the biggest players in the photography industry. However, the company would become bankrupt in 2012. This discussion uses the video file “The Decline of Kodak…What Happened?” to describe how the leaders at this company failed to focus on disruptive technologies and how they could affect organizational performance.
Challenges of Technological Change
The studied article has exposed some of the realities that Kodak had to wrestle with in an effort to remain a market leader. When digital cameras emerged in the industry, this company was on the frontline and focused on the best approaches to delivering high-quality devices. However, the leaders examined the past of the company and realized that their cameras were not the primary source of profits (Company Man, 2018). Instead, photo film had changed the game for this company, thereby making it one of the most successful in the industry. Most of the partners at this company were convinced that Kodak was not going to benefit from digital cameras.
The company chose to ignore the emerging disruptive digital technologies despite the fact that it possessed some of the ideas and ideas in the industry. The leaders failed to consider and implement the most appropriate technological change that could help make it through the new century (Company Man, 2018). The absence of a contingency plan to keep pace and continue competing in the changing technological environment would affect the recorded profits, thereby forcing the organization to file for bankruptcy in 2012.
Kodak’s Competencies
The presented case study reveals that Kodak has had historical periods with divergent results and profits. Before its demise, the company was a leading innovator and producer of quality products and photography services that we’re capable of meeting the demands of more customers. Several competencies are evident from the company’s situation at the time. First, the leaders and followers were conversant with the requirements in the industry. Consequently, they were able to produce high-quality photo film and paper that delivered the best experiences to the customers. Second, the organization had developed and implemented an effective business model and taglines that appeared to attract more clients. For instance, the “Kodak moment” concept encouraged more people to rely on Kodak’s products to keep their memories. These practices will maximize the recorded profits and revenues.
Third, a proper culture existed that encouraged all the workers to engage in research and development (R&D) and produce superior products for different markets. Fourth, the company would succeed in innovating, developing, and marketing digital cameras. Finally, the able leadership of different managers contributed to the company’s success spanning over a hundred years (Company Man, 2018). These competencies explain how and why Kodak was able to overcome most of the challenges experienced in the industry and transform the overall experiences of most of its customers.
Imaging vs. Chemical Company
The analyzed video describes how the managers at Kodak chose to brand the company as an imaging corporation. Such a move made the company would not be concentrating primarily on its chemical segment. However, the leaders erred because the production and use of photo film could only be studied and understood from the chemical perspective. Such a move was wrong since the company was not entirely a photography organization. This decision ignored that the company’s central role or industry was that of chemicals (Company Man, 2018). With such a decision, the emergence and proliferation of digital cameras would make it impossible for the organization to break even since they were unable to compete directly.
From the nature of this scenario, it is evident that most of the emerging producers and designers of digital cameras would seize such an opportunity and focus on the best ways to meet the demands of more customers. If the company would have taken the area of chemicals seriously, chances are quite high that they would be able to focus on emerging chemicals that are demanded in different sectors today (Grant, 2019). Such an approach would have transformed the business model and supported the realization of the intended business aims. Consequently, such a mistake is to blame for the company’s failure and inability to achieve its objectives or profits.
Evaluating Kodak’s Approaches
The success of Kodak in the late 19th century could be attributable to the company’s ability to remain focused and examine the demands of its customers. Through constant research and innovation, Kodak was in a position to develop its quality photo film that would become the talk of the century. However, the emergence of modern technologies presented a new reality that all the professionals and entrepreneurs in different sectors had to take into consideration (Grant, 2019). Unfortunately, the company’s top leadership became obsessed with its success and competencies that had maximized profitability for more than a century.
The new developments called for organizational strategic change if Kodak was to maintain its competitiveness in the industry. Unfortunately, the leaders failed in the manner in which they managed such a transformation. First, the failure to consider the trends recorded in the external environment. Second, the company’s strategies were unable to monitor the expectations and demands of 21st-century customers (Company Man, 2018). These gaps made it impossible for the managers to introduce and implement an organizational-wide change that would result in a totally new business model.
The professionals failed to take the concept of organizational ambidexterity seriously. This concept means that the company was unable to introduce the right change, segregate modern units from traditional ones, and focus on new processes ad structures that would help transform organizational performance. The organizational leaders failed to analyze the trends associated with digital cameras and the changing factors in the external business environment (Grant, 2019). Consequently, the company would realize that it was facing a possible crisis.
When new challenges began to emerge, including the loss of revenues and reduced sales, the relevant leaders were reluctant to implement the most appropriate crisis management strategy. This gap would make it impossible for Kodak to develop or follow a contingency plan that would have helped transform the situation (Grant, 2019). Additionally, the company failed to capitalize on the available capacities ad develop them accordingly. With modern technologies presenting additional dynamic capabilities, the leaders remained reluctant and chose to ignore the digital camera that had already been patented successfully.
Kodak chose not to give the digital cameras they required. According to some of the professionals, the company had relied on its traditional performance to predict how cameras would only be intended to capture images that would then have to be printed on its photo paper (Company Man, 2018). While the relevant leaders were aware of the available information, they failed to embrace the power of knowledge management and make timely decisions that could have helped improve organizational performance.
Kodak’s Failure and Different Approach
The available evidence shows conclusively that Kodak’s failure was inevitable since it had failed to give digital cameras the attention they required. The time had come for corporations and businesses to get rid of traditional photography procedures and focus on the best ways to capitalize on modern technologies. Additionally, the choice to promote and support Kodak as an imaging company would make it less competitive when other players entered the industry in the later 1990s. From these facts, it is agreeable that Kodak should have focused on the best ways to produce and market digital cameras. This approach would have benefited from a new approach or business model that was not influenced by traditional performance (Grant, 2019). The leaders should have implemented the right change, consider the changing demands of more customers, and taken the issue of disruptive technology seriously. With such a different approach in place, Kodak would still be a recognizable and profitable company today.
Conclusion
The completed discussion has identified Kodak as a company whose demise is attributable to the leaders’ failure to remain prepared for possible changes and disruptions in the external market. The organization would eventually file for bankruptcy due to its ineffectiveness in knowledge management, strategic implementation, and crisis management. The identified alternative approaches could have helped the company stay afloat and meet the demands of most of the targeted customers.
References
Company Man. (2018). The decline of Kodak…What happened?[Video]. YouTube.
Grant, R. M. (2019). Contemporary strategy analysis (10th ed.). Wiley.