No Marshmallows, Just Term Papers
"Both Fujifilm and Kodak knew the digital age was surging towards us," Fujifilm Chief Executive Shigetaka Komori said in a recent interview. "The question was what to do about it."
Comparison and Contrast of Approaches of Kodak and Fujifilm
What Fujifilm did was to look further than simply moving to digital photography from analog. Instead, the company tapped its chemical expertise for broader uses, such as drugs and liquid-crystal display panels.
The Tokyo-based company's post digital transition was not swift or easy. Thousands of jobs were, sacrificed, and manufacturing facilities shut down. Mr. Komori took the reins of the company as president in 2000, just as demand for color photographic film was hitting its peak. After he was, named chief executive three years later, Fujifilm acted to survive the advance of digital photography by restructuring and venturing into new businesses. In 2005 and 2006, the company performed large cut in costs, mainly in its photographic-film business.
Fujifilm logged a record profit soon after. Fujifilm reached another turning point after the global financial crisis began, forcing the company to shed even more money from its budget in costs from 2009 through 2010.
Management Differences that Affected the Success
"The most decisive factor [for our success] was how drastically we were able to transform our businesses when digitalization occurred," Mr. Komori said. What set Fujifilm apart from Kodak, he said, was the Japanese company's effort to branch out by employing technologies that were originally, developed for photography. "Technologically, we already possessed diverse resources. So we thought, 'There must be ways to turn them into new businesses,' “Mr. Komori said. Fujifilm could not have maintained revenue if it focused only on digital imaging (Jasper, 2012).
More specifically, he sees the four main types of management in the strategic planning process. These include...