MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAMME IN INOVATION MANAGEMENT AND

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Student: Georgakaki Konstantina..........................................................................................

Module: IME51

WA: SWA1

Class: Strategic Innovation Management..............................................................................

Tutor: Andreas Masouras......................................................................................................

Academic year: 2022-2023....................................................................................................

Contents

1. Question 1.......................................................................................................................2
2. Question 2.......................................................................................................................3
References..................................................................................................................................4

i
1. Question 1
Kodak was founded in the late 19th century and became a household name with its
popular film cameras and film rolls. Kodak around 1990s become e dominant player
in the photography industry. However, with the advent of digital cameras and
smartphones, the demand for film-based photography was disrupted by the rise of
digital photography, because it was slow to adapt to the shift towards digital
photography and failed to recognize the potential of digital technology.

The disruption of Kodak's industry can be explained by the concept of disruptive

innovation, as described by Clayton Christensen in his book "The Innovator's
Dilemma". (Christensen, 2011) According to Christensen, disruptive innovation
occurs when a new technology or product enters the market at the low end and
gradually improves over time, eventually disrupting the existing market leaders. In the
case of Kodak, digital photography was the disruptive innovation that disrupted the
film-based photography industry.
Kodak, as an established player in the film-based photography industry, was focused
on improving its existing products and technologies, rather than exploring the
potential of digital photography. In fact, Kodak failed to recognize the disruptive
potential of digital photography, and instead, they invested heavily in their existing
film-based technologies.
Regarding Kodak's industry disruption, one relevant concept is the use of longitudinal
research (Thomas, 2022) to study the evolution of technology and industry dynamics
over time. Longitudinal research involves studying a particular phenomenon over an
extended period of time, using a variety of data sources and analysis methods. This
type of research is particularly relevant for studying industry disruptions, as it allows
researchers to track the emergence and evolution of new technologies, business
models, and market dynamics. (Thomas, 2022)
Kodak’s longitudinal research could have been used to track the emergence and
evolution of digital photography and its impact on the film-based photography
industry. This type of research would involve collecting and analyzing data on the
adoption and diffusion of digital photography among consumers, the development of
digital camera technology, and the response of industry players such as Kodak.
Based on longitudinal research, we identify the key factors that contributed to the
disruption of Kodak's industry. For example, they could analyze how the early

2
limitations of digital photography were gradually overcome through improvements in
technology and manufacturing processes. They could also explore the role of
consumer preferences and expectations in driving the shift towards digital
photography, as well as the response of Kodak and other industry players to this
disruption. (MINDS, 2018)

2. Question 2
Regarding to the article on Harvard Business Review titled "Kodak's Downfall Wasn't
About Technology," there were a few elements of Kodak's transformation failure.
(Anthony, 2016)
First of all, Kodak was heavily invested in the traditional film photography market,
which was declining rapidly due to the rise of digital photography. The company was
slow to recognize the potential of digital technology and the shift in consumer
preferences towards digital photography.
Secondly, Kodak, “misread” the market. In fact, Kodak believed that consumers
would be willing to pay a premium for high-quality printed photos, but failed to
recognize the growing importance of digital sharing and online storage. The company
invested heavily in printing technology, while failing to develop a comprehensive
digital strategy.
Another reason that Kodak failed, seems to be the Ineffective leadership. Kodak's
leadership was criticized for being slow to respond to changing market dynamics, and
for failing to make the difficult decisions necessary to turn the company around. The
company also had a reputation for being insular and resistant to change.
Last but not least, it seems that there was in general lack of focus. For instance, Kodak
attempted to diversify into a variety of businesses outside of its core photography
business, including pharmaceuticals, batteries, and office equipment. (Feder, 1988)
This lack of focus and strategic vision led to a loss of resources and a lack of
investment in new technologies and growth opportunities.
Of course, there were several strategies that Kodak could have taken to better prepare
for the disruption in its industry. For instance, Kodak should embrace disruptive
innovation from the start and invested heavily in digital technology, rather than
clinging to its traditional film business. (Anthony, 2016)

3
Kodak should also develop a flexible business model which could help the company
adapt changing market conditions and new technologies, rather than being too reliant
on its existing revenue streams.
Another thing that Kodak should follow is to adapt an innovative culture rather than
being too insular and risk averse.
The company could be better prepared to tackle with the disruption in its industry, if
they had invested in talent and resources, also. Kodak should have invested in
recruiting and retaining top talent and allocating resources to support innovation and
new product development.
Last but not least, the company should have collaborated with external partners, such
as technology companies and startups, to leverage their expertise and stay ahead of
the curve in the fast-changing digital market.
By taking these steps, Kodak could have been better prepared to tackle the disruption
in its industry and compete more effectively in the digital age.

Unfortunately, Kodak struggled to remain competitive in the market, and their

disruption came. Through Kodak’s story we can highlight the importance of staying
innovative and adapting to changing technologies and consumer preferences.

References

Anthony, S. D. (2016, July 15). Harvard Business Review. Ανάκτηση από Kodak’s Downfall Wasn’t
About Technology: https://hbr.org/2016/07/kodaks-downfall-wasnt-about-technology
Christensen, C. (2011). The Innovator's Dilemma. HARPER.
Feder, B. J. (1988, January 25). New York Times. Ανάκτηση από Kodak's Diversification Plan Moves
Into a Higher Gear: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/25/business/kodak-s-diversification-
plan-moves-into-a-higher-gear.html
MINDS, B. (2018, December 14). BRAND MINDS. Ανάκτηση από Why Did Kodak Fail and What Can
You Learn from its Demise?: https://brand-minds.medium.com/why-did-kodak-fail-and-what-
can-you-learn-from-its-failure-70b92793493c
Thomas, L. (2022, October 24). Scribbr. Ανάκτηση από Longitudinal Study | Definition, Approaches &
Examples: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/longitudinal-study/