Kodak CASE Study, second week of class PDF

Preview

Summary

assignment for bonus points, second week of class...

Description

In the beginning of those two decades Kodak’s strategy was mainly based on vertical integration and selfsufficiency; as the years went by senior management understood that times were changing, both from the revolutionary technological advancements that were being made; and from the emergence of new competitors. They tackled this challenges by switching their presence in the markets, in fact the went from operating in the professional markets; to focusing on the amateur market, with the introduction of user friendly hardware combined with proprietary technology. Their ultimate end-goal was to transition into the digital picture market exploiting their massive competitive advantage. This line of thought was represented by the creation of the EasyShare ecosystem and with the self-printing kiosks that were spreaded thanks to Kodak’s developed infrastructure. Even though Kodak predicted in due time the changes on the horizon, they still were not able to succeed in the transition, but why hasn’it work? The main problem starts at the root of the company, its management pool. In these two decades three different CEOs were appointed, the problem derived from their very different visions which in consequence altered the company’s once smooth sail chronologically and technologically. problem that derives directly from this was the divestment that was made by one of the CEOs which led to Kodak abandoning the Professional market favouring the amateur one. Another thing that Kodak did was loose its competitive advantage little by little; this happened because they stopped producing and developing in-house in favour of strategic partnerships and joint ventures. This was still viable during the 90’s because the competitors did not penetrate the market thoroughly. As the years passed, competitors became technological and electronical masters. This left Kodak still recognised as one of the industry’s largest member, because its struggles occurred financially; culminating with the declaration of bankruptcy in 2012. Now that we know how the strategy failed, was there a better alternative? To put it bluntly, yes. For starters, the company’s vision should not have changed so many times and so drastically. This would have lead to an healthier organisation with clearer ideas. The divestments should not have been made since they undermined drastically the company’s financial position; instead Kodak should have focused on the professional and government (contractual) markets. Doing so would have lead to a stronger financial position composed of intent profits and very diversified and consistent market presence ( since a presence in the professional market, wouldn’t have compromised a future position in the amateur market). In other words, the company should have stuck to its competitive advantage while still monitoring the amount that was being invested outside the company, maybe re-wiring those funds into in-house research and development. If now were 2012 the next steps in my opinion should be, prioritising in-house development whilst going back at the same time to those markets that were missed out in the first place. The next play should be to take inspiration from one of Kodak’s biggest competitor Fuji, since the strategy that they have implemented was very effective and market shattering....