Actual for You
#1 in Business Subscribe Email Print

You are here: Home > Finance > Stocks Mutual Funds > Stock Research – Eastman Kodak and the Power of Disruptive Technologies

Tags

  • other
  • engines
  • powerseller
  • traditional television
  • directors should
  • development system

  • Links

  • Accounts Receivable Financing: The Way to Increasing Profits
  • Coping With Long Haul Flights
  • How To Cope With Loss And Trauma For A Person With Manic Depression
  • Actual for You - Stock Research – Eastman Kodak and the Power of Disruptive Technologies

    How to Use TITLE Effectively With Your Keyword or Keyword Phrase - SEO Tactics
    There are quite a few HTML tags ranging from coloring text to enlarging its size. There are even ways to make text move. But it takes special tags for Search Engines to recognize as being persuasive. It is also ironic that the following tags are used in that capacity for isolating importance.The first is the [TITLE] and [/TITLE] tags. These are used together.In fact, every HTML document must have a TITLE element within the HEAD section of a HTML page.The TITLE element is used to pick out the contents of a document. Since users often consult documents out of context, webmasters should provide context-rich titles. Thus, instead of a title such as "Introduction", which does not provide much contextual background, webmasters shou
    dividual who coined the term, disruptive technologies, or what happens when a new innovation comes in and completely blows away a company’s formerly dominant technology.

    • No company has the luxury of sitting on its rear end, and counting on its cash hoard to keep it in business forever.

    • Theodore Levitt of Harvard always talked about “What business are you in?” You’d better make sure that you are constantly thinking about how to obsolete your own business, because your competitors are thinking about it all the time.

    • Every company should have an internal team that is separate and apart from the company. The sole function of this team would be to come up with ways to destroy the company by developing better products, or better yet technologies that would obsolete the company’s current technology. Xerox decades ago created Xerox PARC (the PARC

    The Basic Human Equation
    From my earliest days of childhood there has existed the notion that someday automation would make human beings obsolete. Computers have made millions of jobs extinct; companies with say thousands of employees would require a corresponding sized bookkeeping department. However with computer automation the number of employees has no relationship with the number of book keeping employees. John Deere for example has an engine factory that is almost completely automated, a human programs the machine and loads the engine blocks onto the line. As the engine blocks move down the line the computer gives instructions and low paid humans visually inspect the machines performance for quality control, the humans have become the robots and the robots the workers.
    It’s simply amazing that ten years into the digital revolution, Eastman Kodak is trying to figure out what business they are in. For decades Kodak dominated the chemically based photographic process. You shoot a roll of film, and then you physically took the roll to a developer, and made a second trip to pick up the finished prints. Their only competition in the industry was the Japanese company, Fuji. The upstart would just eat away each year at Kodak’s market, but never becoming a real threat to Kodak’s dominance.

    Meanwhile from outside the industry, Polaroid back in the late 1950’s invented a camera where the chemical based development of the pictures took place inside the camera. The picture was ready in about 60 seconds. Polaroid developed a wonderful business and made a fortune for both its shareholders and its genius creator, Dr. Edwin Land.

    What happened next was a business disaster, and Kodak should have learned from Polaroid’s mistakes. Dr. Land came up with a moving picture development system. They poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a chemically based system. It would allow users to take moving pictures. The movies would be developed chemically inside the camera system, the same as the still picture system then utilized.

    What Polaroid not only didn’t plan for, but couldn’t even imagine was that a disruptive technology would be created from another industry that would basically destroy Polaroid’s business model. Japan would create digital photography. The first Japanese VHS and Betamax camera systems became available. The electronic based technology made so much more sense than Polaroid chemically based system. It forced Polaroid to shut down its movie system products. It also resulted in the immediate write off of hundreds of millions of dollars (equivalent to billions today) that it would never recoup.

    Now I ask you, Kodak was in the business, we know that. They saw what this new technology did to Polaroid OVERNIGHT. Couldn’t they imagine that it could happen to them? The answer is apparently not. The management team at Eastman Kodak has been brain dead for at least 20 years. The management team and the Board of Directors should have been dismissed more than a decade ago for gross incompetence. They took a magnificent cash generating machine, and allowed it to turn into a boring, mundane second class company.

    They simply chose to ignore what was coming, and what was coming was a TIDAL WAVE, that would sweep away Kodak’s traditional business. Kodak could have chosen to lead the digital revolution. They could have chosen to take the billions of dollars of cash generated by their traditional chemically based systems, and redeploy in other high end technology driven businesses like digital imaging in the medical industry. No, neither choice happened. The company chose instead, to DO NOTHING. Try to maintain the status quo was the order of the day.

    Now Kodak is faced with a “what do we do now” decision? It is just a question of how many years it takes before the Kodak way of doing business (chemical processing) completely evaporates. There are a number of lessons to be taken from this example of a formerly world class company going belly up because of an inappropriate business model. Among them are:

    • Every company must absorb the central thesis of Clayton Christensen’s two books, “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, and “The Innovator’s Solution”. Harvard professor Christensen was the individual who coined the term, disruptive technologies, or what happens when a new innovation comes in and completely blows away a company’s formerly dominant technology.

    • No company has the luxury of sitting on its rear end, and counting on its cash hoard to keep it in business forever.

    • Theodore Levitt of Harvard always talked about “What business are you in?” You’d better make sure that you are constantly thinking about how to obsolete your own business, because your competitors are thinking about it all the time.

    • Every company should have an internal team that is separate and apart from the company. The sole function of this team would be to come up with ways to destroy the company by developing better products, or better yet technologies that would obsolete the company’s current technology. Xerox decades ago created Xerox PARC (the PARC

    Web-Video Won - The Difference Between Web-Video Marketing and Television Advertising
    The title of this article "Web-Video Won" seems to be a bizarrerie since traditional television advertising still has its power after all. It however emphasizes the advantages of web-video, which are unable to be competed by traditional television advertising. Perhaps the television advertising age is passing away, and this might be as controversial as the issue of "online media VS traditional media".1. Web-video is less expensive (in distribution)A number of observers and researchers pointed out that web-video is dramatically save. Comparing with television advertising clips, to distribute on web, videos do not have to be in high quality format. This might be one of the reasons to say "web-video is less expensive." More importantly, wh
    hat happened next was a business disaster, and Kodak should have learned from Polaroid’s mistakes. Dr. Land came up with a moving picture development system. They poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a chemically based system. It would allow users to take moving pictures. The movies would be developed chemically inside the camera system, the same as the still picture system then utilized.

    What Polaroid not only didn’t plan for, but couldn’t even imagine was that a disruptive technology would be created from another industry that would basically destroy Polaroid’s business model. Japan would create digital photography. The first Japanese VHS and Betamax camera systems became available. The electronic based technology made so much more sense than Polaroid chemically based system. It forced Polaroid to shut down its movie system products. It also resulted in the immediate write off of hundreds of millions of dollars (equivalent to billions today) that it would never recoup.

    Now I ask you, Kodak was in the business, we know that. They saw what this new technology did to Polaroid OVERNIGHT. Couldn’t they imagine that it could happen to them? The answer is apparently not. The management team at Eastman Kodak has been brain dead for at least 20 years. The management team and the Board of Directors should have been dismissed more than a decade ago for gross incompetence. They took a magnificent cash generating machine, and allowed it to turn into a boring, mundane second class company.

    They simply chose to ignore what was coming, and what was coming was a TIDAL WAVE, that would sweep away Kodak’s traditional business. Kodak could have chosen to lead the digital revolution. They could have chosen to take the billions of dollars of cash generated by their traditional chemically based systems, and redeploy in other high end technology driven businesses like digital imaging in the medical industry. No, neither choice happened. The company chose instead, to DO NOTHING. Try to maintain the status quo was the order of the day.

    Now Kodak is faced with a “what do we do now” decision? It is just a question of how many years it takes before the Kodak way of doing business (chemical processing) completely evaporates. There are a number of lessons to be taken from this example of a formerly world class company going belly up because of an inappropriate business model. Among them are:

    • Every company must absorb the central thesis of Clayton Christensen’s two books, “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, and “The Innovator’s Solution”. Harvard professor Christensen was the individual who coined the term, disruptive technologies, or what happens when a new innovation comes in and completely blows away a company’s formerly dominant technology.

    • No company has the luxury of sitting on its rear end, and counting on its cash hoard to keep it in business forever.

    • Theodore Levitt of Harvard always talked about “What business are you in?” You’d better make sure that you are constantly thinking about how to obsolete your own business, because your competitors are thinking about it all the time.

    • Every company should have an internal team that is separate and apart from the company. The sole function of this team would be to come up with ways to destroy the company by developing better products, or better yet technologies that would obsolete the company’s current technology. Xerox decades ago created Xerox PARC (the PARC

    Top Strategies to Get Quality Links to Your Website Even If It's New
    In the current scheme of things, a website that has links from other related websites merits high ranking in the major search engines for its main keywords. This is so because the search engines consider the external links as votes of confidence by the other websites.It’s relatively easy and a breeze to campaign for reciprocal links when you already have a website with a high google PR and alexa rating. (Google PR is a rank based on how many relevant websites link to yours and Alexa is a measure of rank with traffic volume as the basis for computation).But what about when your site is just new with a PR0 and an alexa rating in the 7 digits? It is definitely more difficult to find people who will want to link back to you. But don’t despa
    ed in the immediate write off of hundreds of millions of dollars (equivalent to billions today) that it would never recoup.

    Now I ask you, Kodak was in the business, we know that. They saw what this new technology did to Polaroid OVERNIGHT. Couldn’t they imagine that it could happen to them? The answer is apparently not. The management team at Eastman Kodak has been brain dead for at least 20 years. The management team and the Board of Directors should have been dismissed more than a decade ago for gross incompetence. They took a magnificent cash generating machine, and allowed it to turn into a boring, mundane second class company.

    They simply chose to ignore what was coming, and what was coming was a TIDAL WAVE, that would sweep away Kodak’s traditional business. Kodak could have chosen to lead the digital revolution. They could have chosen to take the billions of dollars of cash generated by their traditional chemically based systems, and redeploy in other high end technology driven businesses like digital imaging in the medical industry. No, neither choice happened. The company chose instead, to DO NOTHING. Try to maintain the status quo was the order of the day.

    Now Kodak is faced with a “what do we do now” decision? It is just a question of how many years it takes before the Kodak way of doing business (chemical processing) completely evaporates. There are a number of lessons to be taken from this example of a formerly world class company going belly up because of an inappropriate business model. Among them are:

    • Every company must absorb the central thesis of Clayton Christensen’s two books, “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, and “The Innovator’s Solution”. Harvard professor Christensen was the individual who coined the term, disruptive technologies, or what happens when a new innovation comes in and completely blows away a company’s formerly dominant technology.

    • No company has the luxury of sitting on its rear end, and counting on its cash hoard to keep it in business forever.

    • Theodore Levitt of Harvard always talked about “What business are you in?” You’d better make sure that you are constantly thinking about how to obsolete your own business, because your competitors are thinking about it all the time.

    • Every company should have an internal team that is separate and apart from the company. The sole function of this team would be to come up with ways to destroy the company by developing better products, or better yet technologies that would obsolete the company’s current technology. Xerox decades ago created Xerox PARC (the PARC

    How to Make Money From eBay Powersellers!
    Ebay Powersellers have some of the best businesses on the whole of the internet. They cover all manner of business types and some of the Powersellers are making millions of dollars every year.To be a Powerseller on eBay, you need to meet some fairly stringent entrance criteria. Not everybody who trades in eBay can be a Powerseller but with a little bit of effort and the right knowledge, almost anyone who puts their mind to it could achieve Powerseller status on eBay.So what does it take to become a Powerseller? The answer to this question will show you how it is possible to profit from the efforts of Powersellers. To be a Powerseller, you need to have shown a turnover of $1000 or more in each of the last three months of trading on eBay.
    the billions of dollars of cash generated by their traditional chemically based systems, and redeploy in other high end technology driven businesses like digital imaging in the medical industry. No, neither choice happened. The company chose instead, to DO NOTHING. Try to maintain the status quo was the order of the day.

    Now Kodak is faced with a “what do we do now” decision? It is just a question of how many years it takes before the Kodak way of doing business (chemical processing) completely evaporates. There are a number of lessons to be taken from this example of a formerly world class company going belly up because of an inappropriate business model. Among them are:

    • Every company must absorb the central thesis of Clayton Christensen’s two books, “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, and “The Innovator’s Solution”. Harvard professor Christensen was the individual who coined the term, disruptive technologies, or what happens when a new innovation comes in and completely blows away a company’s formerly dominant technology.

    • No company has the luxury of sitting on its rear end, and counting on its cash hoard to keep it in business forever.

    • Theodore Levitt of Harvard always talked about “What business are you in?” You’d better make sure that you are constantly thinking about how to obsolete your own business, because your competitors are thinking about it all the time.

    • Every company should have an internal team that is separate and apart from the company. The sole function of this team would be to come up with ways to destroy the company by developing better products, or better yet technologies that would obsolete the company’s current technology. Xerox decades ago created Xerox PARC (the PARC

    Help With Your First Invention - Provisional Patent Application
    IntroductionIn this article I will try to explain purpose of Provisional Patent Application, its benefits and drawbacks. Provisional Patent Application allows inventors to start patent process without incurring the high cost of patent lawyers. However, because Provisional Applications are simpler to complete then the Regular Patent Application, it doesn’t mean that inventors should take them lightly.Documenting Your InventionThe reason why you should carefully document your idea is the following – your Provisional Patent Application may be the only source of proof that you are the original inventor and entitled to reaping the benefits of the patent. It is very possible that since the time you have submitted your Provisional Paten
    dividual who coined the term, disruptive technologies, or what happens when a new innovation comes in and completely blows away a company’s formerly dominant technology.

    • No company has the luxury of sitting on its rear end, and counting on its cash hoard to keep it in business forever.

    • Theodore Levitt of Harvard always talked about “What business are you in?” You’d better make sure that you are constantly thinking about how to obsolete your own business, because your competitors are thinking about it all the time.

    • Every company should have an internal team that is separate and apart from the company. The sole function of this team would be to come up with ways to destroy the company by developing better products, or better yet technologies that would obsolete the company’s current technology. Xerox decades ago created Xerox PARC (the PARC stands for Palo Alto Research Center) in 1970. They intentionally put it in Palo Alto, California because they didn’t want to have their thinking contaminated by the atmosphere in Rochester, NY, a dead town. The same town as Kodak’s corporate headquarters by the way.

    You want to talk about accomplishments; Xerox PARC came up with the mouse that we use on personal computers. They also created the graphical user interface that you use on your PC, and the basic design of the personal computer was taken from Xerox PARC by Steve Jobs. Xerox completely failed to cash in on any of these creations. The guys in Rochester were just as asleep at the switch as the guys at Kodak. There must be something about the air they breathe in Rochester that lulls them into a sense of complacency.

    • Companies need to buy smaller companies who are creating the innovating technologies that will put them out of business. If they wait until the technology enters an actionable phase, it is too expensive to purchase. Examples are Yahoo and Microsoft, both of whom had an opportunity to buy Google for millions of bucks. Google now has a market cap of $150 billion, and is virtually untouchable.

    Is it too late for Kodak to save itself? The answer is probably yes. Very rarely can a company in such a downward spiral find the managerial talent, and more importantly COURAGE to transform itself internally. The current management team is too interested in continuing its own benefit package and retirement benefits, to make the hard, tough, and necessary decisions to be transformative. Hopefully, other American companies, and investors can learn from the bitter story that Kodak has to teach us. Good luck.

    HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
    <a href="http://www.actual4u.com/article/117006/actual4u-Stock-Research--Eastman-Kodak-and-the-Power-of-Disruptive-Technologies.html">Stock Research – Eastman Kodak and the Power of Disruptive Technologies</a>

    BB link (for phorums):
    [url=http://www.actual4u.com/article/117006/actual4u-Stock-Research--Eastman-Kodak-and-the-Power-of-Disruptive-Technologies.html]Stock Research – Eastman Kodak and the Power of Disruptive Technologies[/url]

    Related Articles:

    Explaining 5S Implementation for the Non-manufacturing Sector

    Make Money Online - The Perfect Method

    24 Hour Loans For Emergency Situations!

    Bookmark it: del.icio.us digg.com reddit.com netvouz.com google.com yahoo.com technorati.com furl.net bloglines.com socialdust.com ma.gnolia.com newsvine.com slashdot.org simpy.com shadows.com blinklist.com