ABSTRACT
The only constant is change. The adage is also true for companies and broadly accepted. Many companies have seen peers in their industry that looked to be bastions of stability being disrupted and falling from their pedestals. The result might be significant loss of market share, exiting the market in order to focus on other core businesses or even bankruptcy. Many examples exist, but companies like Nokia, Kodak and Hasselblad are shadows of their former selves (if the company indeed is still in existence). In most cases, the analysis is that the companies had become static, unable to change and only running forward along the trajectory that had made them successful in the past. Consequently, the consensus in industry is that change is needed to survive. However, to assume that these companies did not try to change is a simplification of the matter. Of course, these companies tried to change and tried to defend their markets and build new markets. Each of these companies took increasingly desperate measures to maintain solvency and develop new growth areas. The challenge, however, is that these companies tend to be out of touch with the market to begin with - they would not be in this situation if they were in touch with the market - so any radical initiatives often are too few and too late.
