Essays on How Eastman Kodak Company Managed Innovation and Change since 1975 Case Study

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "How Eastman Kodak Company Managed Innovation and Change since 1975" is a good example of a business case study. This report critically evaluates the innovation and change management implemented within Eastman Kodak Company. To start with, all that drives change in this company and any resistance that go with it are identified. It also elaborates on the change management strategies which these companies have implemented so as to remain successful and most importantly competitive internationally. After a deep analysis, there are substantial recommendations and conclusions that Kodak can employ so as to be at a competitive advantage in a market that is defined by innovation and change.

Finally, it is worth noting that, this analysis is based on the Eastman Kodak case study (Gavetti, Henderson & Girogi, 2005) Background of Kodak Kodak is a company that was founded in 1884 by George Eastman in Rochester, New York. This started with just a simple, preloaded, point and shoot camera where people could capture even day’ s moment. This was an invention that changed photography forever and Kodak established its hallmark easy to use camera system that was accessible to all (Gavetti, Henderson & Giorgi 2005).

The transformation to digital photography in 1975 caused tremendous changes in the company whereby in 1995 they inaugurated a DC40 camera which the resulted to at least 40 percent of America household owning one digital camera by the end of 2004. Additionally, Kodak has diversified in other businesses like acquiring IBM’ s copier services business; Clinical Diagnostics producing in-vitro blood analysers; Mass Memory and other Bioscience and lab research firms. It is also worth noting that, this company has transformed from black and white films to coloured films and then to digital photography (Brienzi & Kekre 2005). Change Management and Innovation There are specific variables concentrated to the business, technical, environmental or even labour environment that trigger changes or transformations in the different activities of organizations.

Change usually touches the people, processes and cultures (Smit & Trigeorgis 2006). To effectively manage change, then all three aspects must balance. Communication is vital when it comes to change initiatives. First, it is used to announce organizational changes and provide the stakeholders with information about the nature and significance of the entire change.

Secondly, the lower-level employees are involved in planning and implementing change and therefore resistance is minimal Innovation and creativity is also another important aspect of the growth and development of technology. Changes in any given organization are as a result of two aspects: economic, which is aimed at the swift management of the organization’ s competitive edge and corporate culture, which is aimed at organization’ s human resources (Hammer 2004). Mergers, reductions or relocations of operative units are also other approaches used to manage change.

In order to remain competitive, change is inevitable in any given organization. Triggers of Change There are circumstances that act as catalysts to organizational change. This, therefore, entails that, any disorganization, which shows that the current arrangements, systems, procedures and rules plus other structures and process are not as effective as they should be are trigger causing change (Pettigrew, Woodman & Cameron 2001). They can either be internal or external. This, therefore, means that the political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal (PESTEL) analysis and Porters five analysis is vital when it comes to change and are therefore Kodak’ s key triggers to change are based on these aspects.

References

Asli Goksoy, Beliz Ozsoy and Ozalp Vayvay. 2012. Business Process Reengineering: Strategic Tool for Managing Organizational Change an Application in a Multinational Company. International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 2; J , 90-112.

Barney, J. B. 1986. Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy. Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 10. , 1231-1241.

Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,Vol.17, No.1, , 99-120.

Baulcomb, J. 2003. Management of change through force field analysis.Authors. Sandra1Source:Journal of Nursing Management; Ju, Vol. 11 Issue 4 , 275-280, 6p.

David J. Teece; Gary Pisano; Amy Shuen. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7. , 509-533.

David W. Cravens,Nigel F. Piercy and Artur Baldauf,. 2009. Management framework guiding strategic thinking in rapidly changing markets. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, Vol. 25, No. 1-2 , 31-49.

Gavetti, G., Henderson, R. and Giorgi, S. 2005. Kodak and the Digital Revolution (A). Harvard Business School, : HBS Press, 1-17.

Glovanni Gavetti, Rebecca Henderson and Simona Girogi. 2005. Kodak and teh Digital Revolution (A). Havard: Havard Business School.

Hammer, M. 2004. “Deep Change: How Operational Innovation Can Transform Your Company,”. Harvard Business Review , 85-93.

Han T. J. Smit and Lenos Trigeorgis. 2006. Strategic planning: valuing and managing portfolios of real options. R&D Management 36, 4, , 403-417.

Harvey, T. 2010. Resistance to change: A guide to harnessing its positive power. Lanham, MD: : Roman & Littlefield.

Jack Duncan W. , Peter M. Gintei, and Linda E. Swayne. 1998. Competitive advantage and internal organizational assessment. Academy al Managemsnl Executive, Vol. 12, No. 3 , 6-16.

Kellerman, B. 2007. What every leader needs to know about followers. Harvard Business. Review, 85(12), , 84-91.

Kotter, J., P. 1996. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Kotter, J., Schlesinger, L. 1979. Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review. Issue 57, pp. 106-114 in King, N. and Anderson, N. (1995). Innovation and Change in Organisations. London: Routledge

Lunenburg, F. C. 2010. Forces for and Resistance to Organizational Change. NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4, , 1-9.

Mark Brienzi and Dr. Sham Kekre. 2005. How Kodak Transformed its Service Parts Supply Chain. S U P P L Y CH A I N MANAGEMENT RE V I E W , 25-32.

McGrath, R.G. and MacMillan, I.C. . 2000. Assessing technology projects using real options reasoning. Research-Technology Management, 43, 4, , 35-49.

Neimeyer, R. A., Anderson, A., & Stockton, L. . 2001. Snakes versus ladders: A validation of laddering technique as a measure of hierarchical structure. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14(2), , 85-105.

Palmer, I. 2002. Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics. . Strategic Change 11(5): , 243–51.

Porter, M. E. 2006. The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 86 (1), pp. 78-93. Accessed online on 28th February, 2011 from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/resultsadvanced?sid=b9cc81e0-7dce-42f4-9c4e-9e6a043203a2%40sessionmgr4&vid=2&hid=13&bquery=(porter)+AND+(2006)&bdata=JmRiPWJ0aCZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., and Cameron, K. S. 2001. Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal 44(4) , 697–713.

Semler, R. ( 2000.). How we went digital without a strategy. . Harvard Business Review , 51–58.

Tucker, K. T. 1979. Force Field Analysis: New Tool for Problem Solving. he Public Relations Journal. New York: July Vol.35, Iss. 7 , 23.

Van de Ven, A. H., and Poole, M. S. . 1995. Explaining development and change in. organizations. Academy of Management Review 20(3): , 510–40.

Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2. , 171-180.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us