Kodak Case – Coursework Example
Kodak Case Kodak Case Christensen’s theory of disruptive technologies relates to the theory that explains the challenges experienced by an incumbent company facing a significant new technology (Lucas & Goh, 2009). Ideally, disruptive technologies are seemingly significant to the least profitable customers in the market since highest-performing companies can eliminate irrelevant ideas thus avoiding disruptive technologies (Lucas & Goh, 2009). It is, therefore, irrational for senior managers to decide on investing on disruptive technologies. A company that practices good management struggles to adapt to disruptive technologies (Lucas & Goh, 2009).
There are two extension dimensions of Christensen’s theory of disruptive technologies in the paper. The paper extended the theory by analyzing the significant organizational changes required to adopt a disruptive technology (Lucas & Goh, 2009). Senior managers have a duty of initiating such organizational changes and convincing other managers on the need for disruptive technologies. The other extension involved encompassing organizational culture that defines employees’ beliefs, interactions, and their organization (Lucas & Goh, 2009).
In Kodak’s case, the authors established that the company’s rigid and bureaucratic structure was one of the main reasons that hindered Kodak from responding appropriately to a changing, disruptive technology (Lucas & Goh, 2009). The inability of Kodak’s middle managers to make a transition also hindered the company from responding appropriately to disruptive technology (Lucas & Goh, 2009). The senior management equally underestimated the eminent growth of digital photography and the middle managers disregarded the new technology (Lucas & Goh, 2009). These factors hindered Kodak from responding appropriately to a changing, disruptive technology.
Lucas, H. C., & Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18 (1), 46–55.