The Kodak bankruptcy, brought to you by…Kodak

By Paul Reali

All nuance considered, the Kodak empire was built on film. The company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization has no one cause, but if there was one primary driver, it was the rise of digital photography and the end of film, and Kodak’s inability to adapt to that change.

Here’s the part of the story you probably don’t know. The digital camera, the ultimate cause of Kodak’s decline, was invented by Kodak.

Now, given the nature of technological invention, it is likely that some other company would have invented the first digital camera, but let’s stay with this line for a moment, and say that by inventing the digital camera, Kodak brought about its own decline.

Well, no and yes.

Kodak did bring about its own decline, but not because of the invention of the digital camera. Kodak was the instrument of its own destruction because it clung too fast to the business of film. It was not an either/or decision: it was a yes/and. Kodak’s path forward was to embrace both worlds, the one they were leaving and the one they were entering.

Kodak invented the digital camera in 1975, but did not truly begin the company’s move into digital until 2004. Clearly, we can see with hindsight, this was too late. True, few could have foreseen the speed with which film was eclipsed by digital, but Kodak did not have to foresee this in order to be ready. They brought about their own decline not by inventing the digital camera, but by closing their eyes to change for far too long.

It was never a film-or-digital decision, until it was. For a long-enough time, it was a film-and-digital decision, and Kodak failed to make it.

The question for the rest of us is this: what is changing in your industry that you are choosing not to embrace? Remember, it’s not either/or; it’s yes/and. What’s your yes/and?

Innovation for the World

Each year, Bill Gates addresses his foundation with a letter summing up the high level priorities for the year. This year’s letter begins with a section on Innovation in Agriculture, to which the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is committing nearly 2 billion dollars.

In his letter, Bill Gates raises a poignant question:

How can we drive innovation where the potential to impact people in need is very high, but the potential for monetary gain is very low?

Here are three examples of when innovation happened even though there was no clear probability of making any return.

Merck and Company Cure River Blindness

This is a well-known example of a corporation putting humanitarian priorities ahead of profit. In the 1980s Merck decided to actually give away one of their drugs to impoverished people in Africa. To this day this continues to help tens of thousands of people. The benefit to Merck has been a tremendous amount of good will. This enabled them to recruit better talent, but also created a sense of mission, loyalty and purpose for their current employees, driving engagement and productivity.

Car Part Incubator

In many developing countries, babies with low birth-weights suffer from disease and many die. Incubators could save many of these lives, but incubators are expensive and even when they are donated and shipped to impoverished communities, they often break down. The expertise and parts required to fix them just aren’t available. Design That Matters has come up with an interesting solution: an incubator made entirely of car parts. The parts and repair skills are both easily available locally, and the Car Part Incubator provides the heat needed to protect a low birth-weight baby.

Children + The Internet = Learning

Sugata Mitra, an educator and education researcher from India, did something curious. He embedded a computer (with Internet access) into a wall in a slum in India, and then he left. He returned months later to find that the local children had taught themselves how to browse, play games, and even some basic English. He’s escalated his research efforts since, and has developed an entirely unique approach to learning.

There are no absolutes. Too often we wish for simple straightforward answers to the question “How do we help our people achieve more creative results?” This is not an unanswerable question, but there is no single right answer for everyone.

In the long history of humanities pursuit to accelerate the pace of creativity innovation and change researchers, pundits, and authors have continually sought to bring to the forefront their latest theory or tear down the accepted truths. Too often this results in confusion around important concepts such as collaboration, brainstorming, incubation and many other successful tools associated with generating creative results. This confusion is what truly hinders creativity and innovation. Imagine the confusion faced by the business leader trying to create the next iPod, or the school administrator trying to transform the way students learn, or the medical researcher trying to find a cure for diabetes. Our belief is that organizations and individuals who are looking to increase the rate of creativity and innovation in their world should consider these three simple truths as the first step in the process of accelerating innovation.

Every person (and every organization) is different: People have different preferences and working styles. Some do well alone others are most productive with a team. There are countless assessments that help us gain insight into our own preferences and those of our employees. By leveraging these preferences and letting individuals work with their strengths we can get the best results and create the most satisfying work environments.

Creativity & Innovation happen as part of a process. It is naive to think that innovation happens in a flash of inspiration or insight. Powerful innovations require extended effort while they undergo the transformation from challenge to change and creativity is required all along the way. During this process many types of skills are required, some work best in solitude, others in teams or groups. Defining an innovation process for your organization or team will help you determine the type of working arrangement that is best for each stage.

Expertise makes the biggest difference in these studies: A deeper look at the research reveals that the level of expertise a group has in collaboration skills has a much greater impact on the results than whether or not they were working along or in a team. Studies have demonstrated that groups un-trained in collaboration do underperform individuals. However, groups trained in collaboration consistently outperform individuals by a very large margin. In fact, trained individuals even outperform untrained individuals when working alone. Perhaps, the more important take away is if you want groups to be good at collaborating, teach them how to collaborate.