Kodak Case Study; Organizational Architecture

If I were responsible for solving the problem, in addition to Kodak’s repositioning strategy, I would do the following:

Question 1: What had been Polaroid’s overall growth strategy? How did this affect its HR planning and strategy?

Organizational Structure Organization structure is the differentiation; that is the way the organisation is differentiated into tasks, responsibilities, departments and hierarchies and the integration (the way the organisation is coordinated to form a unitary whole). It defines how activities in the organization are directed toward the achievement of organizational aims. The structure provides the foundation on which standard operating procedures and routines rest, determines which individuals get to participate in which decision making processes and thus to what extent their view shape the organization’s actions (Stephen, 1987) United Parcel Services Organization Chart United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) is the world’s largest package delivery

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.

In Phase II we ensured external competitiveness by analyzing the external market survey data on total

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.

This model was developed by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (Mindtools 2012). Essentially, it aims to improve the overall performance and productivity of an organization while aligning all departments to suit the shared vision of the organization (Peters 2011). There are a number of benefits within its flexible nature and ability to look back and analyze the success of a previously implemented strategic change within the organization (Simister 2011). It is retroactive, yet it can be an important diagnostic tool in learning for future endeavors of change (Peters 2009).

Drivers for change come in two categories, internal and external. In the simulation, "Organization Structure", the pretence was that the stagnating system integration market, lead the CEO to

When making changes to its organizational architecture, Kodak should have designed it with following characteristics in mind: 1) assignment of decision rights, 2) methods of rewarding individuals, and 3) structure of systems to evaluate the performance of both individuals and business units (Brickley, 2009, p. 341). When changing organizational architecture, it is very important to keep in mind that the three components of organizational architecture are interdependent and need to be coordinated (Brickley, 2009, p. 350-1). Simply stated, the company did not implement a rewards method and performance evaluation system (e.g., the MAPP) at the same time it began changing assignment of decision rights (e.g., restructuring into 17 new departments). When one component is changed, the other components should be changed too. Holding employees accountable while simultaneously implementing a decentralized decision making approach would have helped Kodak to improve the effectiveness of the change in architecture. The company had a stranglehold on the industry and was set it its own company

In my March 6 memo, I discussed the need for Kodak to revamp its core strategy and regain popularity. Eastman Kodak has been the leader of photography and printing products for nearly 130 years. Over the last few years Kodak has been in distress due to its poor fundamental shift into the digital age. Lack of strategic creativity led Kodak to misunderstand the industry in which it was operating. This lack of strategic creativity was costly for Kodak.

In general, Kodak has done well in the innovation implementation. This paper mainly discusses the innovation system within the group also influence the innovation

Norwood wants to restructure Polaroid’s debt and equity to maximize the company’s future potential. During this restructuring, Norwood wants to keep the cost of capital low, create value, and preserve Polaroid’s investment grade in order to allow for future borrowing at investment grade status.

To account for their miscalculation in film sales, Kodak is undergoing a massive digitally based shift. Kodak plans on building a stronger base in its consumer, medical, and profession imaging products. However, this shift does not come without a price tag. Kodak’s projected spending could reach as much as $3 billion in future investments to aid the shift. With these investments Kodak claims a tremendous turnaround in revenue. Kodak anticipates reaching $16 billion in revenue by 2006 and $20 billion by 2010. To pay

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: