Assess the Balance of Planned and Emergent Approaches to Strategic Management in East Kodak

The problem in this case is concerned with Eastman Kodak losing its market share in film products to lower-priced economy brands. Over the last five years, in addition to being brand-aware, customers have also become price-conscious. This has resulted in the fast paced growth of lower priced segments in which Kodak has no presence.

Kodak is known for providing the quality services, innovative products offering the best quality to customers. It developed competitive advantages and satisfied its customers during many years. Kodak has evolved different strategies in the field of traditional photography where it brought innovations and modification. Kodak has a successful history in the industry. According to the case study, the main reason behind the success of Kodak in the industry is its quality.

The problem in this case is Kodak's steadily eroding market share and shareholder value in the film rolls market. This is especially undesirable given the fact that the market has been growing at a tepid 2% annual rate and the steadily increasing threat from competition. Kodak needs to come up with a strategy for corrective action so as to arrest this decline, regain market share and increase share holder value. Kodak's strategy is to reposition itself by targeting a new segment of price sensitive customers and re-segmenting the super premium customers’ space by including a wider segment of special occasion customers.

In his article, “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning,” Henry Mintzberg (1994) provides his views on the process of strategic planning. He offers that most companies and organizations start a strategic planning process with little understanding of the definition or actual purpose of planning. He tends to admonish much of the conventional understanding concerning strategic planning and proposes his interpretations. He states that “the most successful strategies are visions, not plans” (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 107).

Taking pictures with the Kodak camera was simpler than the earlier camera because first, it did not require a darkroom or chemicals and glass plates. It did not require any of these things because it was not only one person’s job to develop and take the photo. The photographer could send their camera in, and the Eastman Kodak Company would develop the pictures for them. “In the first year, 13,000 people paid $25 for a Kodak; they each took 100 pictures, returned the camera and within ten days, Kodak sent back the prints and camera with film for another 100 pictures,” (Buckland and Lefer 250). This opened up a whole new door for inexperienced photographers. All they had to do was take pictures, and send the camera

When Kodak began making changes to its organizational architecture in 1984, its current architecture did not fit the business environment for the industry. The largest factor that motivated Kodak to make this change was increased competition and decreased market share. Until the early 1980’s, Kodak owned the film production market with very little competition. This suddenly changed when Fuji Corporation and many other generic store brands began producing high quality film as well (Brickley, 2009, p. 358). Another factor in this change was technology advancements. As technology rapidly expanded in the 1980’s, other

The option can revamp its line of attack to surpass current expectations. Though this option has a high level of risk, if successful, would implement a drastic change to Kodak’s strategy and overall performance for the good of company leaders, employees, and stakeholders. The new CEO will be evaluated after one year by leaders, employees, and stakeholders.

While Eastman Kodak has remained an industry leader in the sales of film for photo-imaging, over the past five years Kodak has underestimated the demand for digital cameras. Digital cameras require no film whatsoever and with Kodak’s main line of production being film Kodak has suffered great losses in net profit. Just in 2004 Camera film sales have been falling even than projected. The Photo Marketing Association predicted a six percent drop in film sales and Kodak projected an even more dismal 10-12 percent drop in film sales. The actual drop in sales reached an unforeseen 18%. In 2003 digital camera sales were greater than traditional film camera sales for the first time.

While Kodak has historically been a well-established brand name in the marketplace, it struggled to find a niche when the industry morphed from a film-based market to a digital-based market. Kodak has struggled to successfully evolve its film-based business structure to the new structure of digital-based technology, which has allowed for competitors to enter the market, decreasing Kodak’s market share. Competitors (such as Canon Inc., Fuji Photo Film Co., Hewlett Packard Co., Nikon, and Sony Corp.) have posed major threats to Kodak’s livelihood. Kodak faces a 5% drop in film sales (2001-2003) and a 3% reduction in overall revenues over the same time period. In addition, revenues and net income are expected to be fairly flat (or decrease) in future estimates. Kodak faces much pressure to revitalize their business through digital imaging, a radical innovation, or risk being eaten alive in an industry they thought they controlled.

Background Eastman Kodak Company, headquartered in Rochester New York, was founded in 1889. The corporation, now multinational and focusing on imaging and photographic equipment, posted revenues in excess of $6 billion in 2011. During most of the 20th century Kodak was dominant in the photographic film industry in 1976 it held 90% of the market but began a downward slide once the Internet, digital cameras and computer processing grew. By 2007, Kodak ceased making a profit and in January 2012 filed for bankruptcy protection and ceased making cameras, video cameras and began to focus on the corporate digital imaging market (De La Merced, 2012). In evaluating Kodak's corporate strategy from the mid-1980s onward, we find that there four major management paradigms in place during this transitional period:

Alfred Chandler(1963) defines strategy as ‘ the determination of the long-run goals and objectives of an enterprise and the adoption of courses of action of an enterprise and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals’. And Michael porter(1996) sees it as ‘Competitive strategy is about being different. It means deliberately choosing different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value’.

Strategy can be defined as being different from one’s competitors, finding the race to operate and accomplished it. According to Michael Porter (1996), while becoming better at what you do is desirable, it will not benefit you in the long run because it is something other competitors can also do. Strategies for organizations are originally developed by Michael E. Porter in 1979 by introducing the five forces model. A company can identify the industry profitability and attractiveness by analyzing the five forces of Porter (Johnson et al., 2008). And then a reasonable strategy can be set up in line with the strengths and the weakness of an organization is able to create a plan for a stronger position for the organization within its

‘Strategic Management’ is a very complex term as many eminent researchers and scholars have had different views and conclusions on strategy. According to White (2004), “Strategic Management involves both systematically developing an idea together with its implications and testing the empirical validity & usefulness of that idea against the real world.” Thus strategy is not only about planning for future but also about confirming the validity of the hypothesis considered and implementing it successfully. Strategy formation may take various forms such as implicit, explicit or emergent. Implicit strategy is a strategy formed by intuitions of an individual. As per implicit strategists, strategic management is about reading the environment

In this report PLEEST (Political, Legal, Economic, Environmental, Social and Technological) approach has been adopted to do the horizon scanning for Kodak Company to choose apt marketing strategies.

In an era of accelerating competition, limited market growth, and declining corporate lifespan, a dramatic change in our approach to strategic planning is an absolute necessity. Companies flourish and fade with increasing frequency. A commitment to “Strategic Innovation” must replace traditional Strategic Planning. Executives who fail to acknowledge the importance of and act on this sea change are almost certain to see their companies’ fortunes fade in the face of new disruptive forces that render old methods and relationships obsolete.