Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Intelligence Failure at Kodak

@mkplantes sees the demise of Kodak as an intelligence failure.

Put yourself in their Kodak leaders’ chairs for a moment and consider the four expectations of a leadership team and, more importantly, consider the speed with which they had to work though all of the expectations:

Sense what’s going on around you? (“Digital is coming!”)
Make sense of what you see, hear, and feel (“Film is dying, but we can’t kill it now. It’s too important!”)
Decide on a course of action (“OMG! Nothing is as big as film is now. Let’s think about this and be careful.”)
Act on your decisions (“Well, this is a big ship! Hard to change course overnight!”)
Kay Plantes, A sad “Kodak moment” business model failure WTN News 7 October 2011


This is effectively an OODA loop. Dr Plantes identifies a number of possible errors in this loop.

1. Incorrect estimate of the pace of change. "Successful companies often underestimate the speed of industry evolution."

2. Incorrect understanding of the value proposition from the customers' perspective. "People don’t buy film, they use film to capture the pictures they want."

3. Incorrect optimization of the basis of competition - commodity wars.

If it was a strategic error for Kodak to get caught up in a dogfight with Fuji, we should also ask how Fuji is faring? Has Fuji committed the same errors as Kodak, and is it suffering the same fate? Meanwhile, Stuart Henshall compares Kodak with HP: two inventive companies, who "failed time and time again to find a more agile footing". (HP - What's Your strategy? August 2011).

Dr Plantes complains that Kodak was focused on the product rather than the value received by its customers - in other words, a platform strategy. But Kodak has been trying to shift its business model from product to a service-oriented platform for at least five years. In November 2006, an article in BusinessWeek described this transformation, and outlined some of the big challenges then facing Kodak (Mistakes made on the road to innovation, BusinessWeek November 2006). In February 2007, Clayton Christensen and Scott D. Anthony saw the Kodak strategy as an ambitious attempt to implement Christensen's concept of disruptive innovation (Will Kodak's New Strategy Work? Forbes February 2007).


Antonio Perez (who spent much of his career at HP) has been the CEO throughout this period, and has watched the Kodak share price drop from around $25 to less than $1. We may infer that Kodak has failed to overcome the challenges identified by BusinessWeek and Christensen. But why?


What's missing from Dr Plantes' analysis is an appreciation of how these four steps operated as an effective OODA loop, with feedback and learning, rather than merely repetition. In a detailed analysis of Kodak strategy, George Mendes concludes
Kodak is an example of repeat strategic failure – it was unable to grasp the future of digital quickly enough, and even when it did so, it was implemented too slowly under a continuous change strategy and ultimately it did not fit coherently as a core competency.

George Mendes, What went wrong at Eastman Kodak (pdf), TheStrategyTank


There is a great deal on the Internet about Kodak's social media strategy - but it seems to be largely about Kodak marketing communications. Journalist Courtney Boyd Myers (@CBM) invites us to Meet the brilliant and beautiful woman behind Kodak’s social media strategy (September 2011). The woman in question is extremely photogenic and obviously good at self-promotion, but there is nothing strategic in the article. The big strategic error here is to regard social media and content management as a marketing issue, separate from the business model itself. This seems to suggest a lack of joined-up thinking - and ultimately a failure of organizational intelligence.


In 2007, Jacob McNulty thought that that instilling the elements of a learning organization would have strongly contributed to a different story for Kodak’s recent years.
A learning organization is one that learns from its mistakes and successes, spots trends in the market and acts on them by being nimble enough to do so.  A culture of learning rewards knowledge sharing which reduces the chances that you’ll be blindsided by something like digital in 2007. Kodak could have presented themselves as a picture company many years ago - whether those pictures are on film or in a file it shouldn’t matter.  Part of making that transition would require a company that is ready to learn and develop.

Jacob McNulty, Not a Kodak Moment (2007)

Other sources claim that Kodak is a learning organization. In which case, why has it failed to learn the things that matter?


 book now  Business Architecture Bootcamp (November 22-23, 2011)
 book now  Workshop: Organizational Intelligence (November 24th, 2011)

Saturday, October 08, 2011

From Convenience to Consilience - “Technology Alone Is Not Enough"

Wikipedia defines Consilience as the unity of knowledge (literally a jumping together of knowledge), which has its roots in the ancient Greek concept of an intrinsic orderliness that governs our cosmos, inherently comprehensible by logical process.

The word appears in an appreciation of Steve Jobs by @jonahlehrer, published in the New Yorker on October 7th 2011.

What set all of Jobs’s companies apart, from Pixar to NeXT to Apple, was, indeed, an insistence that computer scientists must work together with artists and designers—that the best ideas emerge from the intersection of technology and the humanities. One of the greatest achievements at Pixar was that we brought these two cultures together and got them working side by side, Jobs said in 2003. ... Perhaps the clearest demonstration can be seen in the design of the Pixar campus. ...

Jobs realized, however, that it wasn’t enough to simply create a space: he needed to make people go there. As he saw it, the main challenge for Pixar was getting its different cultures to work together, forcing the computer geeks and cartoonists to collaborate. (John Lasseter, the chief creative officer at Pixar, describes the equation this way: Technology inspires art, and art challenges the technology.) In typical fashion, Jobs saw this as a design problem. ...

That emphasis on consilience, even if it came at the expense of convenience, has always been a defining trait of Steve Jobs. In an age of intellectual fragmentation, Jobs insisted that the best creations occurred when people from disparate fields were connected together, when our distinct ways of seeing the world were brought to bear on a singular problem. It’s what happens when a calligrapher designs a computer font and when an animator strikes up a conversation with a programmer at the bathroom sink. The Latin crest of Pixar University says it all: Alienus Non Diutius. Alone no longer.

Jonah Lehrer, Steve Jobs: “Technology Alone Is Not Enough” (New Yorker, 7 October 2011)


Steve Jobs was widely regarded as an outstanding product architect - someone with exceptional aesthetic sense and attention to detail. The creation of the iTunes ecosystem probably ranks as solution architecture rather than just product architecture. But Jonah's account emphasizes Job's exceptional ability as an enterprise architect - putting people and organizations together to achieve a classical unity of knowledge, which Jonah calls consilience. According to Jonah, it was his secret sauce.

Other commentators have said similar things. When Jobs finally resigned, John @Gruber stated that Jobs’s greatest creation isn’t any Apple product. It is Apple itself. (Daring Fireball, August 2011) Building on this statement, Horace Dediu (@asymco) invites other companies to copy how Apple harbors the creative process and the technology processes under the same roof. If that occurs, Jobs will have left a legacy not just on his own companies (Apple, Pixar) but on all companies. (Polymath Asymco August 2011, reposted as Steve Jobs's Ultimate Lesson for Companies HBR August 2011)



Related Posts

Steve Jobs was not a visionary (October 2011)
From Coincidensity to Consilience (January 2015)

Link updated 18 April 2015