Kodak Case Study; Organizational Architecture
To: Kelly Johnston, CEO Kodak
From: Head of Marketing Operations, Kodak
In Reference To: A Kodak moment; drawing your attention to major architectural flaws within our company, specifically the MAPP plan, as well as solutions for more sustainable options for future structures.
It has come to my attention that there are some major flaws lying inside our organizational architecture. These flaws lay in the foundation of Kodak`s organization structure and so we cannot move forward until these basic errors are corrected. We are seeking companywide success and must act as a company to achieve this.
Throughout its history we`ve experienced dramatic economic upturns and downturns. We are currently trying to pull ourselves out of bankruptcy and I believe the way to do so is through changes in our organizational architecture. These changes alone will not lead to success, as we still face problems in the digital technology area however they will certainly contribute positively. This means making changes in performance-evaluation methods, reward systems and responsibility assignments.
Our previous attempts; decentralization in 1984 and the MAPP plan in 1987 have been widely unsuccessful. This means we must look closely at what went wrong within these plans, and restructure accordingly.
Now, I’d like to specify what the flaws were in our initial organization restructure plans. 1987 saw Kodak change the assignments of decision rights within our company. Clearly between 1983 and 1987, Kodak leadership realized the need for more change, and we restructured the management’s evaluation and reward systems with the MAPP program. I believe we at Kodak have taken two out of three steps towards a complete and successful organizational restructuring. However the final step must be taken; analyzing the results of the MAPP restructuring and changing the plan accordingly. I believe that the MAPP plan was unsuccessful because it targeted Kodak management only. If we want
From: Head of Marketing Operations, Kodak
In Reference To: A Kodak moment; drawing your attention to major architectural flaws within our company, specifically the MAPP plan, as well as solutions for more sustainable options for future structures.
It has come to my attention that there are some major flaws lying inside our organizational architecture. These flaws lay in the foundation of Kodak`s organization structure and so we cannot move forward until these basic errors are corrected. We are seeking companywide success and must act as a company to achieve this.
Throughout its history we`ve experienced dramatic economic upturns and downturns. We are currently trying to pull ourselves out of bankruptcy and I believe the way to do so is through changes in our organizational architecture. These changes alone will not lead to success, as we still face problems in the digital technology area however they will certainly contribute positively. This means making changes in performance-evaluation methods, reward systems and responsibility assignments.
Our previous attempts; decentralization in 1984 and the MAPP plan in 1987 have been widely unsuccessful. This means we must look closely at what went wrong within these plans, and restructure accordingly.
Now, I’d like to specify what the flaws were in our initial organization restructure plans. 1987 saw Kodak change the assignments of decision rights within our company. Clearly between 1983 and 1987, Kodak leadership realized the need for more change, and we restructured the management’s evaluation and reward systems with the MAPP program. I believe we at Kodak have taken two out of three steps towards a complete and successful organizational restructuring. However the final step must be taken; analyzing the results of the MAPP restructuring and changing the plan accordingly. I believe that the MAPP plan was unsuccessful because it targeted Kodak management only. If we want