BUSI-1604-M01-2021-22 Foundations of Scholarship and Research

Literature receive on Disruptive Technology: How Kodak Missed The Digital Photography Revolution

Name: Chetan Ramannavar

Student ID: 001123935

Introduction

The chosen article titled as, Disruptive Technology: How Kodak Missed The Digital Photography Revolution by (Henry C. Lucas Jr and Jie Mein Goh, 2009).

This paper serves the purpose to dissect as to how firms react to difficulties from uncommon groundbreaking innovation that undermines a customary, effective plan of action. For boundless or proficient case study of Kodak company the theory of disruptive technologies given by (Christensen, 1997) is referred.

George Eastman Kodak, commenced the first camera company in 1888 with the sloganYou press the button, we do the rest. Eastman reserved the name "Kodak", a negligible word which would before long foster a definition all alone and quickly become one of the most conspicuous brands on the planet. To go with the reserved name, He created and delivered a Kodak camera which was stacked with paper film of 100 photographs. This started a new era of enthusiast and dilettante photographers

Notwithstanding, regardless of basically designing the advanced camera, Kodak didn't maintain the pivot of its venture enough on digital or automated photography and was overshadowed by different brands like Nikon and Canon. In 2005 Kodak was the biggest dealer of digital cameras in the US however by 2007 it had tumbled to fourth place and by 2010 to seventh. (Edward Clay, 2010)

Therefore, The two principle commitments of the paper are the augmentation to Christensens hypothesis and the examples from Kodaks foiled reaction to a significant innovative disruption.

Literature Review and Research Gap

In context with Christensens theory of disruptive technology which is in famous for highlighting plight of the incumbent firm facing a significant new technology. He points out the error of rational financial decision making by senior managers an argues for the most part disruptive technologies are of primary interest to the minimal profitable consumers in a market. (Christensens, 1997).

He also mentions adroit good management as the determinant of the default in adaption. The navigation and asset distribution processes that make set up organizations, lucrative reason them to dismiss troublesome advances.

In addition to Christensens and Overdorf (2000) he dispense an outline to deal with the disruptive changes are resources, processes, and values. Here, resources consist of people, technology, product design, cash, equipments and relationships; processes include procedures and operational patterns of the firm; and values states the standards employees use to set priorities in decision making. He even states, Managers design processes so that employees perform tasks in a consistent way every time; they are not meant to change. The key operations for enduring these technologies are in companys environment that conduct market research and interpret economic projections. The utilisation of values implicate the culture of the institution, as the employees display their values by prioritising their customers and the orders including the alluring level of any idea. All this contributes to the culture of any institution, defining the capabilities and incompetencies while approaching any innovation.

Policies Driven

Organisational culture moulds perceptions of the organisation and has a key feature in its response to technology-enabled modifications.

Culture is a pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration a pattern of assumptions that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems (Schein, 1983).

Founders teach departmental or managerial members through their working which helps to develop a culture, to learned and embed ( HYPERLINK "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868709000043" l "bib27" Schein, 1985).

Culture functions at both the ends- macro and micro levels, in an organisation.

Schein defines culture, as a multilevel notion that is spread across various dimensions of management. Literature ( HYPERLINK "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868709000043" l "bib5" Burke, 2002) often highlights the role of senior management in producing any firms culture; yet an urge to consider the characteristics of middle management which has been less signified in previous research ( HYPERLINK "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868709000043" l "bib2" Balogun and Johnson, 2004, HYPERLINK "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868709000043" l "bib10" Danneels, 2004).

Middle managers usually consist of sizeable managerial group as they play an important role in executing strategy of the firm. Their status in the organisational hierarchy, middle managements responsibilities may differ from senior management.

Prior literature on organisational change accepts the role of culture to ease, manage, or impede change (e.g.,Burke, 2002, HYPERLINK "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868709000043" l "bib32" Tripsas and Gavetti, 2000).

A bureaucracy is linked with slow reactions and employees who cherish security instead risk-taking. Bureaucratic system yields organisational inertia ( HYPERLINK "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868709000043" l "bib22" Merton, 1957).

Hence, culture of any organisation that promotes hierarchy and support the status quo, will be repellent to any disruptive technologies.

Relevant Theories

The following table elucidates various theories given by Christensen and their relevance and understandings with reference to the case of Kodak.

Theory of Christensens

APPLICABILITY INAPPLICABILITY

Items dependent on troublesome innovations are commonly less expensive, less difficult, more modest and, much of the time, more advantageous to UTILISE At first advanced cameras were more costly and huge; steadily they became less expensive, less difficult and more modest Digital cameras changed more than the actual curio; they changed the course of photography one currently caught a picture and a photograph was just a single method of showing the picture. Digital photography likewise changed the dispersion, sharing and duplicating of pictures by means of the Internet.

Innovations can advance quicker than market interest.

It gave the idea that digital cameras encouraged their own market interest.

investing aggressively in disruptive technologies is not a rational financial decision for them to makeBy and large, a problematic innovation is at first embraced by the most un-productive clients in a market.

As digital cameras decreased and more straightforward to utilise, shoppers took on them. Not satisfactory in case they saved on photography or not, however the providers of imaging administrations changed Kodak thought at first that the primary market for digital photography would be the expert picture taker, not the novice shopper. It put vigorously in digital items, however didn't deal with that venture well ($5 billion when Fisher showed up).

The most noteworthy performing organisations have very much evolved frameworks for killing thoughts their clients don't need. Thus, these ORGANISATIONS think that it is extremely challenging to put satisfactory assets in troublesome innovations lower-edge openings that their clients don't need until their clients need them. Also by then it is past the point of no return.

Kodak belittled the speed with which the buyer portion would embrace digital photography Kodak appeared to be overlooking clients; it zeroed in on film since it was agreeable thus beneficial. The organisation had a simple, science outlook and couldn't think carefully

The explanation is that great administration itself was the main driver. Directors played the game the manner in which it should be played. The very direction and asset portion processes that are the way in to the accomplishment of set up ORGANISATIONS are the very cycles that reject problematic advances.

Kodak has all the earmarks of being more in a condition of disavowal. Conceivably at first this explanation might have held them back from contributing, yet Kodak started to foster a computerised technique long after it was clear to every other person that it required one Senior administration distributed assets to advanced items, however centre directors dismissed the problematic innovation

Give liability regarding problematic advancements to associations whose clients need them. Kodak attempted a different hierarchical unit Kodak continued getting sorted out and yet again putting together. Information propose that when a different association was made, the computerised subunit and conventional photography had genuine struggle over assets

The CENTRE chiefs should choose which of the thoughts that come rising in or to them they will support and convey to upper administration for endorsement, and which thoughts they will just permit to grieve. Their responsibility is to filter the smart thoughts from the terrible and to make smart thoughts such a ton better that they routinely secure SUBSIDISING from senior administration. Kodak's centre administrators hindered the change to advanced Senior administration was attempting to change centre administration, and had little achievement. For this situation it was not centre administration carrying thoughts to senior administration; the bearing was the inverse

Change in Christensens Disruptive Theory

The framework suggests that management propensities influence the ability of the organisation to marshal dynamic capabilities for change and to attack core rigidities. What was the result of this ongoing struggle at Kodak?

The author deduced it stating that, the key failures at Kodak was the inability of the organisation to bring about change: it was not able to marshal dynamic capabilities for change or successfully counter core rigidities. The board of directors at Kodak hired George Fisher to bring about change, to help convert Kodak into a digital company and create a digital mindset. Fisher separated the companys imaging efforts into a new division of Digital and Applied Imaging. Eventually Fisher arrived at a networks and consumables model for Kodak. The company would be in the middle of the imaging business with customers, sending photos, using Kodak print kiosks, and printing photos using Kodak printers and paper (Gavetti et al., 2004).

Research Methodology

The examination detailed here comes from essential and auxiliary sources. The acquired yearly reports from Kodak and looked through the writing to construct an authentic timetable of the vital occasions in digital photography and Kodak's reaction to this new innovation and checked out past Kodak sites (www.archive.org) to get a feeling of changes in advertising and methodology. As a piece of a bigger task on IT-empowered changes, individuals from an examination group visited Kodak and talked with two representatives the organisation was ready to make accessible to us. Additionally as a piece of the bigger review we asked Carly Fiorina, ex-CEO of HP, to develop her initial investigation and remarks on Kodak's set of experiences with digital photography. We counselled a showing contextual investigation, books and a recorded meeting with one of the Kodak CEOs during this time span.

Discourse Analysis and Institutional Change

In this paper, we explore the central role of institutional entrepreneurs in

explaining the formation of new institutions and new institutional eldsaround new technologies. We argue that, by strategically producing and

disseminating various texts,1organizations seek to develop discourses that

suit their particular interests and advance their preferred technologies. These

discourses, which underpin the institutions upon which technologies depend

for their widespread adoption, lead to the evolution of new institutions and

the modication of institutional elds (Phillips et al. 2004). Discourse analysis

thus serves as a valuable aid to studying the role of agents in the micro-

dynamics that surround the institutionalization of new technologies.

Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction

Discourse analysis provides a useful theoretical framework, and a practical

methodological approach, for organizational researchers interested in

understanding the constructive role of language in organizational and

interorganizational phenomena (Alvesson and Krreman 2000; Phillips and

Hardy 2002; Grant et al. 1998; Putnam and Fairhurst 2001). As a theoretical

framework, discourse analysis is grounded in a strong social constructionist

epistemology that sees language as constitutive and constructive of reality

rather than reective and representative (Gergen 1999). As a method, it

provides a set of techniques for exploring how the socially constructed ideas

and objects that constitute the social world are created and maintained. Where

more traditional qualitative methodologies work to interpret social reality as

it exists, discourse analysis endeavours to uncover the way in which it was

produced and is held in place. Discourse analysis is therefore complementary

to other forms of qualitative inquiry used in organization and management

theory, but adds a useful focus on processes of social construction.

For our purposes here, we dene a discourse as an interrelated set of texts

that brings an object into being, along with the related practices of text

production, dissemination and reception (Chalaby 1996; Parker 1992).

Discourse analysis, then, involves the structured and systematic study of texts

including their production, dissemination and consumption undertaken

to explore the relationship between discourses, agents and the production of

social reality (Van Dijk 1997). The texts that make up discourses may take a

variety of forms, including written texts, spoken words, pictures, videos or

any other interpretable artefact (Grant et al. 1998).

It is important to point out that texts are not meaningful individually. It is

their links to other texts, the way in which they draw on different discourses,

how and to whom they are disseminated, the methods of their production and

the manner in which they are received and consumed that make them

meaningful. Our approach to the study of discourse is therefore three

dimensional in the sense that it links texts to discourses and locates both

within a particular historical and social context (Fairclough 1992; Faircloughand Wodak 1997). Discourse analysis is concerned equally with all three

Munir & Phillips: The Birth of the Kodak Moment 1667

05_Munir_26_11_correxs_2 18/10/05 3:49 pm Page 1667

levels and with the interrelationships among them. And, from an organizationand management theory perspective, it is this concern with context that

is, the social world of organizations that makes the study of texts and

discourses useful and interesting.

Discourses constitute three kinds of social entities: concepts, objects and

subject positions (Fairclough 1992). Concepts are more or less contested

social constructions, residing only in the realm of the ideal, that form the

culturally and historically situated frame for understanding social reality (e.g.

the idea that a species of animal can be endangered). Objects, on the other

hand, are parts of the practical realm made sensible by discourse (e.g. the

Snow Leopard as an endangered species). They are partially ideal but have

a material aspect. Put another way, when a concept is used to make some

aspect of material reality meaningful, an object has been constituted. Subject

positions differ fundamentally from objects and concepts in that they are

locations in social space from which certain more or less well dened agents

produce certain kinds of texts in certain ways (e.g. a psychiatrist producing

a diagnosis). They are identities that allow agents to participate in a discourse

in particular ways (e.g. certify someone insane). This ability to produce texts

is important for two reasons. First, being able to inhabit a subject position

allows the agent to have particular effects on how objects are constituted.

Second, many of the texts that make up the discourse are produced from

certain socially constructed positions that can only be inhabited by certain

kinds of agents. Being able to inhabit one of these positions allows the agent

to have particular effects on the discourse.

The idea of concepts, objects and subject positions emerging out of discourse

provides a very useful framework for examining processes of institution-

alization (Phillips et al. 2004). From this perspective, institutions are social

constructions produced by discourses. They are concepts, objects and subject

positions that have become institutionalized and have come to characterize a

particular institutional eld. The ramications of this observation are explored

in the next section.