THE UPHILL BATTLE

AT EASTMAN KODAK
BASED ON CULTURE

PRESENTED BY
GAZAL (14202255)
ANURAG MISHRA (14202257)
HARISH (14202260)
SWETA (14202254)
NAVIN KANSHI(14202044)
SOUVIK DATTA

HISTORY
1880: George Eastman start manufacture of dry plates.
1884: Introduced paper roll film.
1888: Eastman registered the trademark Kodak.
1888: The first model Kodak camera appeared.
1889:The Eastman Company was formed.
1891: George Eastman began to produce a second line of cameras, the
Ordinary range.
1892: It was renamed the Eastman Kodak Company in 1892.

Cont.
1935: Introduced colour film.
1970: Major sales growth for Kodak
Concentrates on film and basic cameras.
1980: Fuji emerges as serious competitor.
1999: Kodak entered the digital
radiography market.

ORGANIZATION
Kodak's organizational structure is extremely centralized which has prevented them from being
STRUCTURE
even more successful.
It took almost fifteen years to restructure the organization and provide some stability that
allowed them to get on the right track to becoming financially competent.
Several different CEO's tried to decentralize the organization and empower the lower level
managers; however, everything ended up being reported directly back to the CEO who had the
majority of the power.
Chandler developed a strategy towards changing Kodak's organizational structure by reducing
costs and making the organization more flexible and adjusted to the competitive environment.
They are well known for being extremely conservative in which all of the decision making
occurred at the top level of management. Since this type of management existed there was a
lack of communication and product decisions were slowed down.

In addition, the management staff was promoted mostly because of their seniority and not
on their ability to perform within the company. This helped keep the power at the top of
the organization and stay centralized.
To make matters worse, the engineers spent too much time testing and analyzing products
and neglected whether or not they would be appealing towards customer needs.
The organizational as a whole became too large and bloated where layoffs and
downsizing needed to take place way before it actually happened.
Kodak expanded a little too much and ultimately things started to crumble under the
leadership of each and every CEO.

KODAK ORGANISATION STRUCTURE

ADAPTABILITY CULTURE

MISSION CULTURE

EXTERNAL

FOCUS
CLAN CULTURE

BUREAUCRATIC CULTURE
INTERNAL

FLEXIBILITY

STABILITY

FACTORS AFFECTING CULTURAL CHANGE

INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE
STRENGTH OF CURRENT CULTURE
LIFE CYCLE STAGE
LEADERSHIP TURNOVER

THE PROBLEMS
Due to low quality, market share was declining.
The company was not customer oriented.
Wrong decision making led to huge monetary losses.
They launched easy-to-use and inexpensive disk camera, with poor quality
picture.
The rivals concertinaed high quality product.
On fortunes list , Kodak felt from 4th to 70th positions.

Cont..
The working style of the company was very traditional.
The company had strong loyalty from its employees.
The company spent huge amounts else where, other than on product development.
The company was technology driven company.
It adapted outdated methods for productions.

Cont.
The management style at Kodak was very complicated.
The decisions followed from top to bottom, even for minor issues.
The company didnt respond to change.
It took a lot of time in launching any product.
The rivals took advantage of this time lag.
Slow decision making lead to the downfall of the company.

THE SOLUTION
The Company should work on improving the quality of the product .
It should indulge in market & customer survey.
It should invest in R&D of the product.
It should keep an eye on the actions taken up by the rivals.
The company should undergo timely changes , so that the practice
are not out dated.

Cont..
It should concentrate on improving the environment of the company.
The actual environment & perceived environment should be
relatable.
The Manager of the company should have good managerial skills.

KODAK NEW BUSINESS MODEL

The printing and imaging company now has three operating groups:
a consumer group overseen by company co-President Laura Quatela
a digital printing and enterprise group headed by co-President Philip Faraci
a graphics, entertainment commercial film group directed by Senior Vice
President Brad Kruchten.
Since entering bankruptcy in January, 2012 the struggling company has filed
notices indicating roughly 500 layoffs here, almost 10% workforce in the Rochester
area. And Chief Executive Antonio Perez is now talking about a "leaner cost
structure."

Conclusion
Great example of strategic failure.
Different models and theoretical concept were applied to identify key factors that have led
the company from where it was to where it stands today.
Lessons we can learn from this case study:
External environment can be deceiving.
Changes happens.
Greatest strength can be weakness.
Innovation is not the perfect solution.