Eastman Kodak’s (Kodak) Quest for a Digital Future Case Study (Case Study Sample)

Eastman Kodak’s (Kodak) Quest for a Digital Future Case Study Student Name University COURSE####: Course Title Instructor Name Due Date Eastman Kodak’s (Kodak) Quest for a Digital Future Case Study Answers 1 What were the challenges of technological change for Kodak given “disruptive” digital technologies? Despite Kodak being the market leader in film photography for many decades and inventing the first digital camera in 1975, the organization faced numerous challenges making it difficult to transition and develop a sustainable customer franchise to thwart the imminent threat; disruptive digital technologies. The company’s first challenge was difficulty in transitioning from their established technology. For more than 100 years, Kodak and the few existing rivals had created and refined a highly-priced production process that allowed customers to capture and conserve images for an extended period. Unlike their previous technology that had entry barriers, the digital technologies were based on semiconductor technology with few entry barriers and outside Kodak’s know-how and capabilities (Grand, 2019). Therefore, transitioning from analog to digital imaging was economically infeasible in the short term to match the rapid technological change. Scaling down was hard for Kodak. Although the technological disruption provided the organization with a set of problems, managing the falling film sales while deriving optimal returns introduced another. The films produced by the company had a limited period of validity, so as the sales fell, it had to puzzle out how to shrivel their manufacturing capacity while maintaining the unit costs, which proved impossible. Therefore, scaling down to match the demand for the disruptive technologies would have cost Kodak billions of money, an aspect that the organization could not manage in the short run. Kodak was also facing ecosystem troubles. The organization had developed an unparalleled and robust ecosystem to sustain film-based imaging. The emergence of digital photography brought about double ecosystem design challenges. Analog imaging declined, and most loyal customers of Kodak products switched to other brands, and Kodak administration did not envisage digital photography's consequences on future image printing. Therefore, it was intricate to change the ecosystem to match the disruption whilst maintaining loyal customers. 2 What were Kodak’s competencies? Was the idea to ‘brand’ the company an imaging company versus a chemical company a mistake? A cursory examination of Kodak's strengths and resources indicates that the organization had several competencies. One of the essential assets for Kodak was its brand name and a supply chain network spanning many countries across the globe, which included close interrelationships with retail establishments, photojournalists, and master camera people. Since its inception in the 19th century, the organization became the most reliable and renowned brand in photography. Kodak's broad product portfolio gave the organization strength in the marketplace. The organization provided a targeted package catering to the needs of different client segments. It had products for the consumer, commercial and professional market segments. The professional market segment was the leader in technological advancements, where the organization launched its state-of-the-art products at higher selling prices. The company provided low-risk solutions to the consumer segment. Therefore, the various targeted packages for different customer segments made Kodak succeed for many years. Kodak was swift in technological advancement. It was leading in innovations in the photography industry. For instance, it was the first to invent the digital camera in 1975. These constant technological advancements enabled the organization to present cutting-edge products to their customers, thus, maintaining their aggressiveness in the marketplace. The concept of branding Kodak as a photography company and not a chemical organization was not a mistake. An organization's brand should be immediately recognizable to guarantee easy customer realization and ensure effective marketing (Mingione et al., 2019). It should also be closely related to the company's end product since it conveys the client's expectations, which assist in building loyalty and enhancing trust. Kodak's business-level strategy focused on differentiation and development of imaging products to the different market customer segments, with the chemical aspect being one of its functional strategies. Therefore, branding Kodak as an imaging company presented its expectations from customers, giving it a competitive edge, unlike a chemical one. 3 Evaluate Kodak’s approaches to managing strategic change including organizational ambidexterity, scenarios, crisis management, capability development, dynamic capabilities, and knowledge management. The change management approaches applied by Kodak failed. The organization had a golden opportunity to flip-flop and rebound to prosperity, but it was unsuccessful. Regarding organizational ambidexterity, the company was unsuccessful in changing its business strategy to match the market's requirements. Kodak had remarkable technologies and a great team of engineers who played a significant role in innovating futuristic product (Holtskog & Ringen, 2020). However, the organization became too prosperous in its business line until it got dazzled by prosperity. Kodak was already having the technology but feared its implementation would harm its income. While client's tastes and preferences were digital cameras, the organization got stuck with the old cameras and film rolls that were gradually becoming old-fashioned. Therefore, Kodak failed in strategic change management from the analog to digital cameras leading to the ownership of the digital cameras by the rivals and Kodak spinning out. In scenarios, Kodak performed reasonably well. When it realized that the imaging industry's trend was switching to digital cameras, it made significant efforts to fairly control the scenario by investing substantially in the digital camera (Howard, 2020). As a result, Kodak created a digital device that yielded positive outcomes. However, the organization made a mistake in managing scenarios by applying the old commercial model and failing to adopt the current commercial model developed for the digital camera. The management of Kodak adequately handled numerous crises in the ecosystem. The organizations were able to hire the greatest brains from other high-tech organizations. This was an excellent focus on its vision and objectives, which was an essential step towards finding a solution for the numerous crises (Tanaka & Masuda, 2020). Therefore, Kodak prospered in managing and handling crises that were essential for concentrating on meeting its set goals. In capability administration, knowledge administration, and dynamic capabilities, the organization performed well in funding research and development (R&D) and employing the best researchers in the technology industry. These measures yielded positive results first few years since the organization could create futuristic products that succeeded in the marketplace (Mingione et al., 2019). However, in subsequent years, despite the enhancement in capability development, there was meager prosperity in the context of profitability and market share. With the large pool of researchers and bi...