The management department in any business organization plays a significant role of decision making. It is the management that comes up with the appropriate business strategy that can keep the organization in a competitive edge. Therefore, if there is any mess or poor performance in the management department of any given organization, a whopping downfall should always be anticipated any time in that organization. This paper will focus on a topic of management by considering a case of Kodak. Kodak is a company that deals with photography. In the paper, the history Kodak’s performance is going to be highlighted so as to make some management conclusions.
Consequently, it can be noted that the once popular digital technology company ended up in bankruptcy sometimes. In the fifteen years, which have gone, digital technology in photography experienced dramatic change. On the contrary, Kodak, which was a former analog film business heavyweight, was left behind by this wave of advancement. This was not the only time Kodak experienced poor performance. Instead, it had fallen several times before. The main problem that led to these falls was in its management. Consequently, the management failed to capitalize on a technology of digital camera, despite the fact that the company was in the front line developing it. Apart from not embracing the immense innovation that it had created, the company also failed to understand the new ways of interaction between its customers and their photos, the market forces and the technologies surrounding them (Swartz & Thorpe 124).
The recent economic downfall hit Kodak hard and contributed to its eventual demise, as other rival organizations struggled and managed to weather through this storm without going bankrupt. The problem with Kodak is that, when it had ventured fully into the digital game, more nimble competitors came in and outclassed it by introducing better products to the market. When Kodak tried to stand out in its former status, it only swung and missed the status. At the moment, the company is totally outclassed. Its management could have saved the company from this low class. This could have been possible if the management could have understood the current day consumer photography as well as the social and digital forces transforming it (Mcnall, Hershauer, & Basile 543).
The worst thing that Kodak did to experience the downfall was that of going ahead of all the competitors and inventing a digital camera but never taking advantage of this great achievement. Kodak invented the digital camera then left it in the closet instead of marketing it and letting it reach the wide and ready market. This invention was the potential strategy for emerging top in the competition. As it sat back on the great innovation, the competitors came and ventured into the market aggressively. Kodak had a classic problem in its business strategy whereby it concentrated much in printing and film. Because of this, it gave little incentive to the idea of pushing the business technology it had developed (Ireland , Hoskisson, & Hitt 76).
The other shortcoming of Kodak was that of coming up with a powerful business technology that could make it possible for photo sharing, only to fail to embrace the idea of photo sharing. It was later when Kodak made the discovery of the fun, passion and interest that the customers had on photo sharing. This was when competitors had established their footing in the market. If Kodak had used its acclaimed technologies that it had invented for photo sharing, it could have gone far ahead of its competitors (Mcnall, Hershauer, & Basile 543).
The management lessons learned
The most immediate lesson that could be learned from the downfall of Kodak is obvious: any business organization should not develop any fears in cannibalizing its business strategy, just in the name of remaining safe. This problem is evident time and again as far as the digital revolution is concerned. When Sony for instance, became reluctant in developing a digital Walkman that was competent, the precious chance went to iPod. Like many companies that have been outclassed by their competitors, Kodak took little effort in strengthening its bottom line (Ireland , Hoskisson, & Hitt 76).
The management of Kodak made the mistake of failing to ensure that its products were standing out. This mistake came up due to the reluctance that was seen in the company when it gave little attention to innovation. That is why the idea of innovation was perhaps the only thing in the minds of the Kodak executive managers in early 2000. The management must, however, understand that, for this real innovation to materialize, vision and risk is necessary.
Therefore, the story of the downfall of Kodak affirms the fact that the true spirit of innovation often springs up from startups and smaller companies rather than established old-school companies of yesteryear which think they do not have much to lose, and thus tend to play it safe. If any management in any company believes that there is no more room for innovation, then it is certainly preparing the company for a regrettable downfall (Ireland , Hoskisson, & Hitt 76).
Works Cited:
Ireland Duane, Hoskisson, Robert & Hitt Michael. Understanding business strategy: concepts
and cases. New York: Cengage Learning, 2005. Print.
Mcnall Scott, Hershauer James & Basile George. The Business of Sustainability: Trends,
Policies, Practices, and Stories of Success. New York: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.
Swartz Greg & Thorpe Julie. Leadership Lessons: 10 Keys to Success in Life and Business. New
York: American Society for Training and Development, 2008
