Kodak has filed for bankruptcy is the headline of the day. The Economist, Jan 14, 2012 issue has published an interesting article on the Kodak's story and its comparision with its Japanese rival Fujifilm. A good comparative case study.

Article mentions the Fuji's transformation into profitable business with market cap of $12.6bn vis a vis Kodak's $220mn. On one hand where Kodak's diversification into pharmaceutical business flopped, that of Fuji's into line of cosmetics and optical films for LCD screen paid off.

Further it says 'Kodak acted like a stereotypical change-resistant Japanese firm, while Fujifilm acted like a flexible American one'.

As usual, few doubts come to my mind. How does the CXOs find the next big thing before their products become obsolete due to technological changes or people preferences. Hind sight is such a beautiful thing. But at the time of diversification decision making Kodak's officials must have done all due diligence. No one want their company/product to flop. Its a different issue that the decision didn't clicked. I find article more in line of 'history is written by victors'. If you are successful, your strategy was great but can one say with surety that their strategy is great, hence their product is going to be successful. I doubt.

Is it that success defines strategy?

PS: Article available at http://www.economist.com/node/21542796