Despite the challenges and troubles faced by Kodak in those early days, all cannot be claimed as lost. Kodak still has viable alternatives through which it can redeem its lost glory and probably claim a share of the market.
However, it all starts with its embracement of digital photography, which is no doubt the selling innovation of recent times.
All will be as good as lost if Kodak cannot alter its ways and adopt digital technology. Additionally, the need to adopt a more future-focused technological orientation cannot be sidelined. As the world goes through sharp technology changes, one cannot afford to ignore the impact of the same on its operation in the near future. Its success is therefore not only pegged on adopting the latest technology but also bringing on board a team of professionals to help it keep abreast of technological changes being recorded in the market.
Interestingly, while Kodak went through what can only be termed as its worst period, its competitors, Fujifilm, fared on quite well. Why, one may ask? Well, Kodak’s complacent monopoly position is by far to blame. Kodak must therefore adopt strategies that do not ignore the role of its competitors in the market but must further embrace a more realistic approach that takes note of what its competitor does and the impact the same would have on its operations.
A change in culture is therefore of extreme importance and perhaps the only sure way through which it can salvage its already vulnerable and perhaps lost market power. Despite its heavy investment in both capital and research, without a change in culture, the efforts would probably be as good as loss and a waste of resources. In simple words, just like any other organization, Kodak must not only shift focus a little bit away from its strength and rather look at the weaknesses and the loopholes that poke its hard work.