Kodak - Change in Organisations

...

expertise into tangible products that could be sold generating high profits (Pangarkar).

As scary as risk-taking may sound, it can actually be seen as a way to step out of the comfort zone, and explore new possibilities, anticipating in change and staying relevant. If not for the existence of ‘dare devils’, some companies would not have been this renowned. Kodak stagnated and ultimately stumbled due to lack of diversification into new barrier growth. On the other Fujifilm, a distant second from the film business to Kodak explored new opportunities (McGrath). For example, Fujifilm found market that is growing and made some key acquisitions to it. Some adjacent market they viewed as business growth (Nielson) were, preventive fields, functional cosmetics and treatment field.

During ‘refreezing’ stage Kodak discovered the need for diversifying. The emphasize of ‘why’ change needs to take place was strong, due to the competition from the competitor. During the ‘change’ stage Kodak tried to diversify, but it displayed an unwillingness to give up on photography and move into something else. One example of its decision to diversify was it created a platform for people to share their phots online. At the ‘refreezing’ stage although changes are done and everyone is informed and supportive, it may not have generated much of a favourable result as the change implemented is not sufficient enough. Although Kodak may have been seen as a monopoly, it is important for it to have a competitive edge and step ahead of its potential competitions. Kodak could have change the company’s direction if they had tried to be a little adventurous and venture out.

What Fujifilm succeeded in doing that Kodak did not, was its execution. Fujifilm pumped in major efforts to sustain its film business, there after they made investments in digital technology and business diversification. But Fujifilm would not have become what it is today, if not for a strong management that has a clear purpose and end goal in mind.

Kodak failed due to the late move into digital photography, lack of market research and unwillingness to change. It is recommendable for Kodak to ensure that it keeps in touch with the market always. By doing so it will allow Kodak to come up with products that reflects the expectations and needs of the consumers. Moreover, this will allow Kodak to closely monitor the actions that are taken by its competitors to create and sustain competitiveness. Secondly, Kodak should lean on its loyal customers to launch new products since the customers’ trust Kodak to come up with quality products. But on contrary, it should not entirely lean on loyal customer base. As a result, this will make sure that Kodak does not create a technology and then back off in fear thinking that it’s going to negatively impact the business. Thirdly, Kodak should conduct market audit to aid in determining how its activities are perceived by the market and proceed on with what should remain or must go. This will help Kodak to concentrate on the expectations, needs and demands of the market.

To be successful, it is vital for a company to adapt itself to the customers’ expectations and needs. No matter how well known Kodak maybe, without a meaningful business strategy, brand in meaningless. In conclusion, change management is a growing trend that every organization need to adopt and execute to bring about new strategic goals and growth that will push the business higher on the competitive landscape. While change is implemented it is important to ensure the change elements are granular, achievable and relevant (Coyne). At the end of the day, it’s all about: manage it well and you will be able to grow your business, stay ahead of the curve and take full advantage of every new opportunity regardless of its size (Coyne).

(1620 words)

Reference:

1. Merced, Michael. "Eastman Kodak Files For Bankruptcy". DealBook. N.p., 2016. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.

2. Yu, Jack. Case Study A * Kodak.Com. 1st ed. 2016. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.

3. Coyne, Ian. Make Change Happen. Print.

4. Organization Development & Change. 10th ed. USA: N.p., 2016. Print.

5. "Lewin’s Change Management Model: Understanding The Three Stages Of Change". Mindtools.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 21 Sept. 2016.

6. Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin: Groups, experiential learning and action research

7. Deutsch, Claudia H. "At Kodak, Some Old Things Are New Again". The New York Times 2008: -. Web. 24 Sept. 2016.

8. "Eastman Kodak". Scribd. N.p., 2016. Web. 24 Sept. 2016.

9. Munir, Kamal. "The Demise Of Kodak: Five Reasons". WSJ. N.p., 2016. Web. 24 Sept. 2016.

10. Pangarkar, Nitin. "A Failure Of Focus: Lessons From Kodak". Thinkbusiness.nus.edu. N.p., 2016. Web. 24 Sept. 2016.

11. Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 1996. Print.

12. Nielson, Jake. "Story Of Kodak: How They Could Have Saved The Business - The Innovative Manager". The Innovative Manager. N.p., 2014. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.

13. McGrath, Rita Gunther. The End Of Competitive Advantage. Print.

14. Rhaiem, M. (2012). Innovate or perish: success factors and sources of failure. Journal Of International Business & Economics, 12(3), 102-122