Critical Thinking: The Nature Of Change 105 Points

Critical Thinking The Nature Of Change 105 Pointsin This Module We

In this module, we explore the constant state of change that organizations face, emphasizing the dynamic and often disruptive forces that influence strategic management. The case of Eastman Kodak's (Kodak) transformation journey presents an illustrative example of how technological advancements, particularly digital innovation, can challenge established business models. This analysis investigates Kodak’s challenges with disruptive digital technologies, examines its core competencies, evaluates its approaches to managing strategic change, and considers whether Kodak’s failure was inevitable or avoidable.

Paper For Above instruction

Eastman Kodak, once a dominant player in photographic film and imaging, faced significant challenges due to the advent of disruptive digital technologies. The company's core dilemma revolved around how rapidly digital photography evolved and how Kodak, with its substantial investments in chemical-based film technologies, responded to this technological shift. The primary challenge was Kodak’s difficulty in transitioning from its traditional chemical film business to a digital imaging entity without cannibalizing its established revenue streams.

Technological change posed a critical threat to Kodak’s entrenched business model. Disruptive innovation theory, as introduced by Clayton Christensen, explains how newer technologies initially perform poorly relative to established standards but eventually surpass incumbent technologies. Digital photography, despite its initial limitations, rapidly improved and began to replace film as consumers and professionals embraced convenience, instant sharing, and digital storage. Kodak’s challenge was preserving its core competencies—its expertise in chemical film manufacturing and brand reputation—while innovating in a new technological landscape.

Kodak's competencies primarily lay in its strong brand recognition, widespread distribution networks, proprietary chemical film technology, and R&D capabilities in imaging. However, an essential question is whether the company's branding as an imaging company was a mistake or a strategic advantage. The company had built its identity around chemical film processing, which became a liability when the industry shifted toward digital. On hindsight, positioning itself solely as an imaging company could have been a strategic advantage if it had redefined and integrated digital imaging into its core competencies early enough, rather than holding onto its chemical roots.

Regarding strategic change management, Kodak's approach to organizational ambidexterity—the ability to explore new opportunities while exploiting existing competencies—was lacking. The firm struggled to balance innovation and operational efficiency simultaneously. Kodak's failure to adopt dynamic capabilities—its inability to adapt swiftly to technological changes—was evident in its sluggish response to the digital revolution. The company's crisis management was insufficient; Kodak did innovate, producing digital sensors and cameras, but these initiatives were often siloed, lacking integration into the overarching corporate strategy. Knowledge management systems could have played a crucial role in capturing and disseminating digital innovation internally, fostering a culture of continuous adaptation.

Assessing whether Kodak's failure was inevitable involves analyzing its strategic choices and market environment. Some scholars argue that Kodak's decline was a result of strategic myopia—overconfidence in existing technologies and business models—and a reluctance to cannibalize its profitable film segment. However, Samsung and Sony successfully navigated similar disruptions by embracing digital early and restructuring their operations accordingly. Kodak could have adopted a more proactive stance, investing aggressively in digital R&D, forming strategic alliances, and pivoting its brand to emphasize digital imaging rather than chemical film. Such measures might have delayed or mitigated its decline.

In conclusion, Kodak's experience underscores the importance of organizational agility and foresight in managing technological change. While some aspects of its decline may have been unavoidable given market forces, strategic missteps and management inertia contributed significantly to its downfall. Early recognition of digital technology as an opportunity, coupled with organizational reforms that foster innovation and adaptation, could have altered its trajectory. As industries continue to evolve rapidly, organizations must cultivate dynamic capabilities and embrace a culture of continual reinvention to thrive amid change.

References

• Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Grant, R. M. (2019). Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Text and Cases (10th ed.). Wiley.
• Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the Future. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 122-128.
• Kerr, A., & Roberts, J. (2017). Strategic agility and organizational change. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(3), 45-52.
• Markides, C. (1997). Diversification, Refocusing, and Economic Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 415-431.
• O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74-81.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press.
• Schendel, D., & Patton, G. R. (1977). Corporate Planning: A Strategic Perspective. Little, Brown.
• Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1993). Customer Intimacy and Other Value Disciplines. Harvard Business Review, 71(1), 84-93.
• Verganti, R. (2009). Radical Innovation and Design Management: An Emerging Framework. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 650-668.