Innovations management in organizations.Eastman Kodak Company - Assignment Example

? Innovations management in organizations Introduction Today, organizations perform in very dynamic environments. For example, technology keep on changings, new risks keep on emerging, and competition keep increasing as new players join the industry in which these organizations operate among others (Dooley & Lupton 2005). In order that organizations keep up with these changes, innovative problem solving techniques are required; otherwise organizations which do not embrace keeping up with these changes risk being edged out of competition by their rivals (Dooley & Lupton 2005). Amongst the worst challenges that organizations are faced with today is keeping up with technological changes (Dooley & Lupton 2005). Change in technology (both technologies required for running activities of organization or their products) has been so dynamic that organizations or companies which do not keep up with these changes may not be able to compete since their products or operations may be rendered obsolete (Dooley & Lupton 2005). For example, everything today is shifting from analogue technologies to digital technologies which are considered more convenient in terms of cost, efficiency and speed (Harmancioglu et al. 2007). Just to mention a few products or industries which have been tremendously affected by the technology changes: cameras (digital cameras seem to be replacing traditional film cameras), TV (digital transmission is replacing the traditional analogue transmission), and phones (emergence of mobile phones have replaced the traditional telephone booths) among others. It has also been noted that some organizations are more innovative than others, and are likely to embrace technology than others. While their counterparts tend to keep their status quo of maintaining their star products or services, these companies keep examining the environments in which they operate so to identify likely change that may take place in future that has the capability of altering the environments in which these organizations operate. This paper, therefore, aims at examining how organization leadership and culture process influence the success of innovation. The paper will also explain why it is hard for an organization to replicate success of other organizations, and why organizations that embrace innovation are different from those that do not embrace technological change. These explanations will be supported by giving real world examples. The difference between these organizations Normally change cannot be managed, all organizations can do is going ahead of change, and it is those who lead change that are able to survive in the dynamics of technological environment. Therefore, organization managements should ensure that their organization go ahead of technological change and innovations. It is the role of the management to embrace change in their organizations, therefore, the difference between organizations that embrace technological innovation change and those that do not embrace these technological changes is that management of the former is more change focused, while management of the latter is more focused on maintaining status quo other than exploring new ways of doing things. Role of leadership, culture and process in the success of innovation Just as mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is the role of organizations leaders to enhance and embrace innovations within the management systems of organizations; it is them who are make policies that govern organizations, and therefore, have powers of developing and enhancing various cultures, including cultures of change and innovations within organizations. Therefore, the management of organizations which do not embrace the technological innovations and changes normally develops strategies of maintaining the market share of their traditional products (Laureate Education 2011). The management of organizations which embrace technological innovations, on the other hand, normally develops strategies extracting money as possible from the existing technology while at the same time taking necessary initiatives of adopting new technology such that when time for new technology come, their products and services would not obsolete (Laureate Education 2011). Therefore, the organization would be able to compete favorably in this new environment. This is what exactly happened to Eastman Kodak Company and Fujifilm; while Eastman Kodak Company developed strategies of maintaining status quo in film industry, Fujifilm was developing strategies of extracting as much as possible from the film industry while at same developing strategies of offering services of digital camera (Business Wire 2002). Today, Eastman Kodak Company is in the brink of collapse while its rival Fujifilm is doing well (Business Wire 2002). Both the Fujifilm and Eastman Kodak Company new that at point in time the traditional film would not relevant in the market (Business Wire 2002). But as the as Eastman Kodak Company wished to remain in the ‘comfort zone’, its major rival, Fujifilm, was thinking otherwise; extracting as much money as possible from the traditional film industry before it becomes obsolete, preparing to switch from the traditional analogue lines of production to digital production lines, and the development of new lines of business (Business Wire 2002). It is also recognized that if culture of encouraging innovations within organizations exist then, there is likelihood that the innovations will be success. This exactly opposite of what happened to that Eastman Kodak Company (Business Wire 2002). Even though, the organization was first to invent digital technology, its implementation did not take effect as it was held back (Business Wire 2002). The management of the organization felt that the digital camera technology would jeopardize its lucrative film business (Business Wire 2002). Therefore, the innovation was failure due to lack of innovation culture in Eastman Kodak Company (Business Wire 2002). Normally, innovation changes and projects are normally risky both in their development and implementation (Shehabuddeen 2007, p. 62). Therefore, the reason as to why the management of Eastman Kodak Company held back the implementation of this innovation is that they felt it is risky as they may spend a lot of money, and might in the long run fail (Business Wire 2002). This was in addition to jeopardizing their lucrative film business (Business Wire 2002). Problems of replicating successes of other organizations by other organizations Normally, it is very hard for one organization to replicate the successes of another company even though the organizations may be operating in the same industry. This is due to the fact that the successful organization might have seen the benefits of staying ahead of technology such that when the technological change finally comes the organization simply embraces it (Shehabuddeen 2007, p. 32). The other company might behind the technological change and innovation such that most its market share must have been lost to the competitors. This is exactly what happened to Eastman Kodak Company. When the organization finally embraced digital technology and launched the digital camera in 1997, it was already as it had lost most its market share. Conclusion and recommendation Changes technology and innovation is always dynamic, and organizations must embrace it in order to remain competitive. In addition, organizations should be always ahead of technological changes and innovations so to avoid the same fate as Eastman Kodak Company. Therefore, management and organization leaders should be leading in embracing technological changes and innovation. References Business Wire., 2002. ADVISORY/CEOs of Agfa, Epson, Fuji and Kodak to Discuss Changing Landscape of Imaging Industry at Marquee Event as Part of Photokina 2002. Business Wire, 1(1), p. 1. Dooley, L., & Lupton, G., 2005. Multiple project management: A modern competitive necessity. Journal of Manufacturing Technolog Management, 16(5), pp. 466-482. Harmancioglu, N., McNally, R.C., Calantone, R.J. & Durmusoglu, S.S., 2007. Your new product development (NPD) is only as good as your process: an exploratory analysis of new NPD process design and implementation. R&D Management, 37 (5), pp.399-424. Laureate Education, Inc., 2011. Operations and deployment. Baltimore, Maryland: Laureate Education, Inc. Shehabuddeen, N., 2007. Innovation in real life: a hands-on guide to genuine innovation. Liverpool: Open Innovation. Read More