Evidence limitation
This comparison comes from a secondary literature overview, not from primary fieldwork conducted inside Kodak or Burberry. It is included as a leadership illustration. It should not be used to claim that one decision alone caused either organisation’s outcome.
Kodak’s reported challenge
Kodak had early knowledge of digital-camera technology, but its established economics and organisational identity remained strongly connected to film. Technical awareness did not translate quickly enough into a different business model.
Burberry’s reported response
The published account describes Burberry using leadership-led digital initiatives to connect e-commerce, physical stores and customer experience. Technology formed part of a broader brand and operating direction rather than a detached IT deployment.
What the comparison shows
Owning or understanding a technology does not ensure organisational change. Leadership must decide whether the technology strengthens the current model, extends it or requires the model to change.
What leadership should take from the comparison
When a new capability threatens existing revenue, incentives or authority, it cannot be treated only as a technical programme. The business-model and operating-model implications should be made explicit before major commitments.
What this means for infrastructure decisions
Infrastructure should be evaluated in relation to the business capability and customer experience it is intended to enable. Technology knowledge is necessary, but it does not replace leadership alignment.
Source and evidence note
de Araujo, L. M. et al. “Digital leadership in business organizations: an overview.” International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership 2(1) (2021), 45–56. DOI: 10.51629/ijeamal.v2i1.18.
Secondary literature overview, not a primary field study of Kodak or Burberry. Use as a comparative leadership illustration and avoid treating it as proof of a single causal explanation.