Dilemma of Innovator-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignmenthelp

Questions: 1.Explain what is meant by Innovators Dilemma? 2.Why do big firms fail? Can the Innovators Dilemma explain the big firms failure? 3.Explain why in your opinion; did Kodak fail to mention what did they do right and what did they do wrong? 4.Select a Company and present an argument that it will fail in the next 10 years if it continues to do things in the same way. Answers: 1.Innovators dilemma is one of the significant aspects that determine the success of the companies in the end. The concept explains the reason for the successful companies to dominate their industries fall in the face of disruptive innovation. Innovators dilemma can be explained by understanding the difference and importance between sustaining and disruptive innovation thereby, explaining why the majority of the companies both large companies and start-ups to adopt disruptive technologies. As commented by Konig, Kammerlander and Enders (2013), companies implement the strategy of sustaining innovation when it aims towards improving the performance of the products based on feedback received from their loyal and target customers. The companies consider their customers feedback in order to reduce the defects thereby, making the product or the service faster and more powerful. However, on the contrary, the concept of disruptive product highlights that the company has some defects with the products and services. Therefore, a well-established and sophisticated company is unable to emphasize in such a technology. The concept of disruptive innovation is the key to provide better services to the customers in future. As mentioned by Christensen and Raynor (2013), sustaining innovation is defined as the approach that aims towards satisfying the current needs of the customers in the market. However, on the contrary, disruptive innovation aims towards meeting the customers demand in future. These two types of innovation are the core of innovators dilemma. In the short-term, the sustaining innovation path seems to be more meaningful but can lead to the failure of the company ultimately. However, on the contrary, the approach of disruptive innovation highlights dedicating the valuable resources to a particular market for the benefit of the company in the future. Disruptive innovation might be an unproven opportunity for the niche market but is often born from the need of the customers in the niche market that is neglected by the current market offerings. The example of Kodak is an example of innovators dilemma. Kodak one of greatest companies that excelled in taking photographs thereby, capturing mome nts and making memories. Nevertheless, Kodak failed to consider the future needs of the customers in respect of photographs. Therefore, the shift in the market demand from being based on emotionally moving images to chemistry crushed the entire company. 2.The big firms fail to consider disruptive innovation as a threat because the companies generally consider the viewpoints and opinions of the executives and the shareholders that are associated with the firm. Thereby, the big companies listen to their target customers and emphasize on the bottom-line. As a result, the customers do not prefer initially poor performing new technologies launched by the big firms (Akiike and Iwao 2015). The disruptive technologies launched by the big firms often have the worse margin compared to the initially dominant incumbent offerings. The big firms fail to dedicate and use their resources, as the niche markets do not look attractive and lucrative. As a result, the big firms fail to nurture the needs of the new customer base by developing the technology to its complete potential (Rotheram-Borus, Swendeman and Chorpita 2012). For example, the engineers of the big firms are appointed for working on the cash-cow offerings but not questionable new staffs . Therefore, the big firms tend to develop a blind nature that is created due to an otherwise rational focus based on the financial performance and the demand of the customers. Therefore, the start-up companies already have few of the innovative technologies launched in the market before the big firms demonstrate the technologies for the new market and the customer base. As a result, the start-up companies have already amazed and attracted the customers with the launch of the new technology. This eventually benefits in growing the customer base and increasing the sales. Therefore, the big firms tend to catch up with the start-up firms, as there are chances that the start-up firms might overpower the big firms thereby, resulting in their failure. The big firms might have a hard time launching a successful innovation strategy because of the innovator's dilemma. The dilemma arises for the big firms as they have a dominant presence in the market due to which they need to protect their market position, business, and customers (Sandstrom, Berglund and Magnusson 2014). Therefore, at certain instances, the big firms might face a competitor from a start-up organization, as they might come up with an innovative and better alternative for the customers by considering the future needs of the customers. Therefore, the big firms encounter dilemma of whether to sustain the market in the field they excel but lose great opportunities by emphasizing on innovations by considering the future demands of the customers that would be fruitful in the end. 3.Kodak was one of its kind inventors in the photography sector, as the company launched the first Box Brownie camera. The main feature of the camera included that the customers just needed to click the bottom and the moment will be captured (Kotter 2012). The camera invented by Kodak gained huge popularity among the standard moviemakers and the generations of still photographers. Between 1963-1970, Kodak sold almost 50 million of Instamatic camera that had little cartridges of film that helped in storing the image. Due to this huge popularity, Kodak once had 145,000 employees along with 90% market share and well-marked profit margins (Gershon 2013). The profit margins of Kodak were so good that the shareholders and the company executives bragged that any other product that is as attractive as Kodaks must be illegal. Kodak had no market competition due to their highly innovative approach provided to the customers. Emotionally moving images were known as Kodak moments. Therefore, in t he 10 years time in the business, Kodak was successful in creating a market base by providing the innovative opportunity for capturing moments. However, in the 10 years of the business, Kodak hardly prepared for the later disruption. The company failed to visualize the need for the customers in the coming years. The company repeated the same mistake the founder of Kodak, George Eastman avoided twice before he gave up a profitable dry plate business before moving to films. Therefore, when Kodak invested in colour films, it dominated the black and white films. In the 10 years time, the market shifted to chemistry-based photography from photography based on bits (Weeks 2015). Therefore, the major reason for failure for Kodak is that the company failed to consider, predict and analyse the demands of the customers in the future. The inability of the management of Kodak to visualize digital photography as a disruptive technology resulted in the failure of the company (Decker et al. 2012). According to the leaders of Kodak, using digital photography as the disruptive technology meant killing the film. The company refused to make new ways by smashing the golden egg of the company. Therefore, the launch of digital photography understood the needs and expectations of the customers due to which Kodak lost the business and the customers. 4.Nokia was one of the giants of the mobile manufacturing industry that have encountered huge competition in the past years from competitors such as Samsung and iPhone. Nokia might fail in the next 10 years if they fail to consider the disruptive innovative technology in terms of the software and demand of the customers. Nokia uses windows software as the operating software. According to the present market demand, the customers prefer using Android software, as they are easy to use and operate. Therefore, if Nokia fails to undertake strategies to change the operating system of the manufactured phones, there are high possibilities that the company might fail in the coming 10 years (Christensen, Raynor and McDonald 2015). Additionally, Nokia tends to underestimate the competitors in the market. The laid-back attitude of the company towards the competitors in the market and the overconfidence that they would catch-up with the ever-changing technology will result in the failure of the co mpany. Failure of Nokia to consider the high-tech era and the continuous demand of innovation of the customers might result in failure of the company in the next 10 years. Additionally, Nokia solely operated with the Symbian software that was extremely difficult for the customers to operate the phones (Guttentag 2015). Considering the demand of the customers, Nokia let go of the Symbian operating system and opted for Windows as the operating system. However, by the time, Nokia launched phones with Windows operating system; Android has captured huge market successfully due to the user-friendliness. Therefore, if Nokia delays to incorporate Android as their phone operating software, the company might lose its complete business in the next 10 years. As Kodak, if Nokia also fails to consider the developing business models that will help in meeting the future needs of the customers. Moreover, the past records of Nokia highlight that the company has launched disappointing phones with unin tuitive, buggy and clunky operating systems. On the other hand, competitors such as Samsung, HTC, and Sony considered the future demands of the customers and launched phones with the Andriod operating system, the facility of dual sim and longer battery life (Horn and Staker 2014). Therefore, if Nokia is unable to maintain the adequacy, pace, and demands of the customers, the company might be at risk in the coming 10 years. References Akiike, A. and Iwao, S., 2015. Criticisms on the innovator's dilemma being in a dilemma. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 14(5), pp.231-246. Christensen, C. and Raynor, M., 2013. The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business Review Press. Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E. and McDonald, R., 2015. Disruptive innovation. Harvard Business Review, 93(12), pp.44-53. Decker, P., Durand, R., Mayfield, C.O., McCormack, C., Skinner, D. and Perdue, G., 2012. Predicting implementation failure in organization change. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 16(2), p.29. Gershon, R.A., 2013. A case study analysis of eastman kodak and blockbuster Inc. Media Management and Economics Research in a Transmedia Environment, Routledge, New York, NY, pp.46-68. Guttentag, D., 2015. Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector. Current issues in Tourism, 18(12), pp.1192-1217. Horn, M.B. and Staker, H., 2014. Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. John Wiley Sons. Knig, A., Kammerlander, N. and Enders, A., 2013. The family innovator's dilemma: How family influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent firms. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), pp.418-441. Kotter, J., 2012. Barriers to change: The real reason behind the Kodak downfall. Forbes, May, 2. Rotheram-Borus, M.J., Swendeman, D. and Chorpita, B.F., 2012. Disruptive innovations for designing and diffusing evidence-based interventions. American Psychologist, 67(6), p.463. Sandstrm, C., Berglund, H. and Magnusson, M., 2014. Symmetric assumptions in the theory of disruptive innovation: Theoretical and managerial implications. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(4), pp.472-483. Weeks, M.R., 2015. Is disruption theory wearing new clothes or just naked? Analyzing recent critiques of disruptive innovation theory. Innovation, 17(4), pp.417-428.