Operational Barriers To Success In Delivering On A Va 572105

Operational Barriers To Successdelivering On A Value Proposition Deman

Operational Barriers to Success Delivering on a value proposition demands constant improvement and innovation as competition changes over time along with evolving customers’ needs and wants. How an organization delivers is not only dependent on its ability to serve the market but also on how well it adapts and overcomes the challenges of its own structure, culture, incentives, and design. However, an organization may face many barriers that hinder its ability to overcome these challenges. Using the module readings, Argosy University online library resources, and the Internet, research operational barriers. Based on your research, address the following: What tools might an organization use to help identify barriers?

Identify at least three barriers that impede an organization’s ability to adopt innovative practices and processes. Identify at least one organization that faced these barriers, describe the approach used to address these barriers, and explain whether it was successful or unsuccessful. Explain what you would you have done differently to overcome these barriers. Write a 3 pages paper in Word format. Apply APA standards to citation of sources.

Gopalakrishnan, S., Kessler, E. H., & Scillitoe, J. L. (2010). Navigating the innovation landscape: Past research, present practice, and future trends . Organization Management Journal , 7 (4), 262–277. doi:10.1057/omj.2010.36 (ProQuest Document ID: )

Paper For Above instruction

Innovation is fundamental to organizational success in a competitive environment, yet numerous operational barriers can impede the adoption and implementation of innovative practices. To effectively identify these barriers, organizations employ a variety of tools that facilitate understanding of internal challenges and external market pressures. These tools include SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), process mapping, organizational audits, and employee feedback mechanisms. SWOT analysis, in particular, helps organizations recognize internal weaknesses, such as rigid structures or outdated technologies, that hinder innovation. Process mapping allows firms to visualize workflow inefficiencies and bottlenecks that obstruct process improvements. Additionally, organizational audits assess structural and cultural factors, revealing resistance to change and incentive misalignments. Employee feedback tools, such as surveys and focus groups, provide insights into frontline barriers that managers might overlook.

Among various barriers, three prominent impediments to innovation adoption include organizational culture resistance, structural inertia, and resource limitations. Organizational culture resistance manifests as a risk-averse mentality or fear of change among employees and leadership, which can stifle experimentation and new ideas. Structural inertia refers to rigid hierarchies and bureaucratic processes that slow decision-making and adaptation. Resource limitations involve financial constraints, lack of skilled personnel, or inadequate technological infrastructure necessary for innovation. A notable example is Kodak, a company that failed to adapt to digital photography trends despite early innovations in digital imaging. Kodak faced these barriers due to a culture resistant to abandoning film business, an entrenched bureaucratic decision-making process, and limited investment in digital technology.

Kodak’s approach to overcoming these barriers involved attempting to pivot towards digital technologies by establishing separate divisions focused on digital imaging. However, these efforts were insufficient, as corporate culture remained attached to traditional film, and structural inertia kept decision-making slow. The company’s emphasis on protecting its core film revenue created internal resistance to fully embracing digital innovation. Ultimately, Kodak’s approach was unsuccessful in transforming the organization, leading to its bankruptcy in 2012. If I were advising Kodak, I would advocate for a more radical strategic overhaul that prioritized cultural change. This would include establishing innovation labs with autonomy from traditional structures and incentivizing risk-taking among employees. Additionally, fostering external collaborations with startups and technology partners could have injected fresh perspectives and accelerated digital transformation. Implementing change management strategies and continuous learning programs could have mitigated resistance and facilitated cultural shifts necessary for innovation.

Successful innovation requires a supportive environment where barriers are acknowledged and systematically addressed. Tools for identifying barriers must be coupled with strategic change management initiatives. For Kodak, a comprehensive approach emphasizing cultural transformation, resource reallocation, and external collaboration might have increased its agility. Ultimately, organizations must understand that overcoming operational barriers is an ongoing process requiring leadership commitment, employee engagement, and adaptive strategies. Future research suggests that integrating innovation frameworks with organizational development processes enhances resilience and capacity for continual improvement (Gopalakrishnan, Kessler & Scillitoe, 2010). Organizations aiming to foster innovation should embed these principles into their strategic planning and operational routines to remain competitive and responsive to market dynamics.

References

• Gopalakrishnan, S., Kessler, E. H., & Scillitoe, J. L. (2010). Navigating the innovation landscape: Past research, present practice, and future trends. Organization Management Journal, 7(4), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2010.36
• Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: strategy as structured chaos. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.
• Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the falsity of crossing: Reply and clarification. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 290-291.
• Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357-381.
• Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A Multi-dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.
• Barsh, J., Capozzi, M., & Davidson, J. (2008). Leadership and innovation: Using strategic innovation to foster growth. McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 42–53.
• Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2014). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market, and Organizational Change. John Wiley & Sons.
• Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 165–188.
• O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.