Planning for a very long term as well as for a very short term can be equally problematic.

” Give
opinion in favour or against the statement referring to the Kodak’s case?

Planning for a very long term as well as for a very short term can be equally problematic, for any
organizations both are equally important and there should be a balance between these two.

Long term plans can be divided into multiples short term plans. Long term plan can be implemented
by implementing short term plans. So, it is very important to be careful about planning.

Generally, many businesses, develop strategies planning with a short term, medium term and long-
term frame work. Short term usually involves processes that show result within a year. Companies
aim medium term plan at results that take several years to achieve. Long term plans include the overall
goals of the company set four to five years in future and usually based on reaching the medium-term
targets. Planning in this way help you to complete short term task while keeping longer term goal in
mind.

Beyond the obvious, knowing the differences between short- and long-term planning can help non-
profits navigate their paths from the present to the future with demonstrated progress toward
achieving their goals. Every board needs directors who are great visionaries. Establishing and working
toward specific short- and long-term goals helps boards bring these visions to life.

Long-term goals are inherently strategic. This characteristic is why long-term goals shape the overall
direction of the organization. The success of achieving long-term goals is a reflection of how well the
board conforms to the organization’s mission.

Strategic planning helps determine the direction and scope of an organisation over the long term,
matching its resources to its changing environment and, in particular, its markets, customers and
clients, so as to meet stakeholder expectations.

By contrast, short-term goals are a reflection of how well the organization’s programs are performing.
Effective board directors know that it takes establishing, monitoring and achieving short- and long-
term goals to help the organization progress.

Short-term goals have an operational component, with action plans for the immediate future. They
also form the action plan for achieving each of the long-term goals. Action plans usually contain daily
or weekly activities.

Having an enterprise mindset that is open to change. Unless those at the top are sufficiently open
and willing to consider all options, the decision-making process soon gets distorted. Unlike its founder,
George Eastman, who twice adopted disruptive photographic technology, Kodak’s management in the
80’s and 90’s were unwilling to consider digital as a replacement for film. This limited them to a
fundamentally flawed path.

Thinking and acting holistically. Separating out and then optimizing different functions usually
reduces the effectiveness of the whole. In Kodak’s case, management did a reasonable job of
understanding how the parts of the enterprise (including its photo finishing partners) interacted within
the framework of the existing technology. There was, however, little appreciation for the effort being
conducted in the Kodak Research Labs with digital technology.

Being able to adapt the business design to changing conditions. The right design depends on the
predictability of the market. Kodak’s unwillingness to change its large and highly efficient ability to
make-and-sell film in the face of developing digital technologies lost it the chance to adopt an
anticipate-and-lead design that could have secured the it a leading position in digital image processing.
Making decisions interactively using a variety of methods. This refers to the ability to incorporate a
range of sophisticated decision support tools when tackling complex business problems. Kodak had a
very effect decision support process in place but failed to use that information effectively.

Kodak made a classic mistake: it didn’t ask the right question. It focused on selling more product,
instead of the business that it was in, storytelling.

What business are we in today? Don’t answer the question with technologies, offerings, or categories.
Instead, define the problem you are solving for customers, or, in our parlance “the job you are doing
for them.” For Kodak, that’s the difference between framing itself as a chemical film company vs. an
imaging company vs. a moment-sharing company.

What new opportunities does the disruption open up? Our colleague Clark Gilbert described more
than a decade ago a great irony of disruption. Perceived as a threat, disruption is actually a great
growth opportunity. Disruption always grows markets, but it also always transforms business models.
Gilbert’s research showed how executives who perceive threats are rigid in response; those who see
opportunities are expansive.

What capabilities do we need to realize these opportunities? Another great irony is that incumbents
are best positioned to seize disruptive opportunities. After all, they have many capabilities that
entrants are racing to replicate, such as access to markets, technologies, and healthy balance sheets.
Of course, these capabilities impose constraints as well, and are almost always insufficient to compete
in new markets in new ways. Approach new growth with appropriate humility.

According to KODAK case, Kodak concentrated more on short term plan that was well established,
market leading and making large profit, ignoring and neglecting in adopting long term planning like
accepting new technology and developing the future product and investing research and development
in cost cutting and investing in continuous of the present product would have made Kodak still
capturing major share in the market of photography industry. Kodak where never ready to think about
the future in technology and relied happy with the way business was doing in the present situation
and they were busy in planning for short term profit with the business model, they were running and
thinking that no other competitors can dominate and compete Kodak in photography industry, Kodak
never realized and thought of future of next 10 years would have though doing SWOT analysis.

SWOT generally refers to analyses the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

Informal forces External forces

Strength - what are we good at? Opportunities-anything happening outside which
might benefit us if we take advantage of it?
Weaknesses-what do we need to get Threat-anything happening outside need to
grip open? defend ourselves from?

Kodak strategies and planners not only preceded over the creations of technological brake throughout
but was also presented with an accurate market assortment about the risk and opportunities of such
conditions. Kodak fails in making the right strategic choices concentrating more and more on short
term planning and ignoring long term planning leads them to failure.

Some of the questions Kodak teaches to the managers are:

Is our core technology converging to the point of being replaced by a general-purpose technology
platform? If so, the company could lose manufacturing scale and early-mover advantages — such as
being far down the legacy manufacturing learning curve.

Is the technology that underpins our business likely to shift to a digital/modular platform that will
lower barriers to entry? If so, commoditization pressure will be inevitable, and the company must
prepare to live on much lower margins.

Do we have a capital-intensive legacy business? If so, can we develop a strategy for scaling down
production volumes that is both capital efficient and keeps production costs from rising excessively?
This is key to maximizing cash flow while trying to execute a transition. It will involve using older
equipment or repurposing production assets to make alternate products.

How does the balance of power in our ecosystem change as technology shifts impact different parts
of the value chain differently? Will the interests of partners cause our company to do things that are
contrary to its long-term interests? This requires thinking about how ecosystem partners will manage
the transition and adjusting strategy accordingly.