Kodak Case Study1

Kodak Case Study

by [Name]

Course + Code

Professor’s Name

Institution

Location of Institution
 Kodak Case Study2

Kodak Case Study

Dan (2012) says that for more than 100 years, Kodak Company has always been

regarded as a leader in the photography industry. Its novel inventions and innovations

enabled it to remain at the top in the photographic industry. The company was founded

in the 1880s, and it rose to the limelight in the 1970s but declared bankrupt in

2012(Levin, 2012). Kodak invested so much in its business after introducing the colored

photographs. It was considered the only company that had the processes and

knowledge of producing the colored type of pictures. The company managed to realize

high sales, and it captured the film market with a market share of about 90% as well as

the camera market by 85%.

Kodak was organized, and it had a unique competency, which gave it more

opportunities compared to its competitors like Canon, Nikon, Casio, Panasonic, HP

Hewlett-Packard, among others. Soon, the company realized radical changes in its

structures following problems such as reduced revenues, market share reduction,

competitors, and the advances of new technology that the entrants joined within the

market (Mupemhi and Muposhi, 2018). The same, there were corporate blunders that

caused the company to lose its opportunities in the industry. The leading cause of its

failure was the strategy that led to its downslide in the digital photographic sector. Kodak

was the only company that was considered to have developed many digital photography

components, and yet the new photographic technology had a significant impact on the

film business (MINDS Brand, 2018). Kodak was chosen in the current case given the

transformation stages the company has gone through and the ability of the firm to be

among the first companies to introduce technology in the photographic industry. This
 Kodak Case Study3

paper seeks to analyze the digital imaging strategy of Kodak, the reasons why the

company failed, and to suggest strategies that can be developed by the company to

regain its lost success.

Kodak’s Digital Imaging Strategy during 1992-2012

Disruptor daily (2016) says that Kodiak is regarded to be one of the digital

revolution pioneers even as the company failed to maintain the pace because of the

rapid changes in the needs of the customers (Reneé and Malan, 2011). Kodak had

competitors, and the dynamics of the market were drastically changing. Kodak's digital

imaging strategy from 1992-2012 was to transform the business into a leading digital

photography firm from the traditional photo firm it was known. For the company to

achieve the strategy, it brought about two strategies: commercial and professional

markets and consumer markets(Egan, 1978). The company wanted to offer reliability,

simplicity, and security to the customers more, especially those that needed to adapt to

new technology. This was why Kodak managed to offer many services which gave room

digitalization and photographs that required editing(IRVINE, 2011). However, the

customers needed more time and effort in learning how to use these services. But later,

the issues were addressed by introducing a system called Easy Share, which allowed

customers to see their images on the devices differently, sharing the images through

emails and printing them. In the process, this helped strengthen the company’s market

share. Concerning commercial and professional markets, the strategy of Kodak was on

printing and scanning photos (Shanklin, 2002). It mainly based on elements that involved

the use of the technology of inkjet and variable-data printing leadership, which brought

about individually customized output. This was because of the good internal capabilities
 Kodak Case Study4

and resources and the hiring, acquisitions, and alliances that were key in adding value

to the existing products and activities.

Kodak made many strategic alliances and joint ventures with AOL, Canon, IBM,

and Intel. Kodak’s main focus was on printed images, and it believed that nothing like

digital technology could replace the company (MacKnight, 1995). This was the reason

Kodak put more emphasis on investing in printers in the market. More so, Kodak’s

strategy was divesting its traditional photography business after the dramatic fall in the

sales of the film products and the increase in digital technology investment. However,

Kodak’s strategies failed and became bankrupt in 2012 because of the company relying

on printed photos excessively(Li, 2015). They had the mentality that people could not

watch the Smartphone screen images and computers, which was wrong. More so, the

company managed to target the wrong customers. They tried to reach vast segments of

customers by creating different kinds of products rather than specializing and

concentrating on the attractive segment.

In addition to the above, Kodak made sure it ventures in the niche strategy, after

offering a selected market with the products. This was after limiting the substitute threat

that Kodak could experience because it led in the film-based photography and

dominated for long(Salehzadeh et al. 2017). The company was good at the creative and

innovative approach, but it became hard to meet the customers' market needs. Kodak

also used the cost leadership, where it shows limits. Kodak managed to use the model

of razor-blade. They started offering the products at lower prices but was unsuccessful

because of the emergence of Fiji Company that imitated the concept of cost
 Kodak Case Study5

leadership(Bruno,2005). This reduced the number of customers and reduced the profits

that the company received. The customers started viewing the Kodak products as of

poor quality, which affected the company's brand image.

More so, the other strategy was the development and implementation of the

digital strategy, whose focus was on imaging. It was based on themes like the

incremental approach, after building its presence by offering products and services due

to technological advancements and changes (Analytical Chemistry, 1981). It managed to

come up with a hybrid camera that had both digital and traditional photography. There

was the employment of a differentiation strategy that offered different services and

products to the customer and commercial markets. The services and products served

had a reflection of the price differentials(Salehzadeh et al. 2017). Moreover, the company

entered in alliances and partnerships to create a more competitive advantage. These

included leading software and hardware business to add a competitive advantage.

Why did the strategy fail?

Matuku (2019) argues that Kodak never failed due to missing the digital age because it

was involved in inventing the digital camera. Instead of carrying out marketing of the

new technology, it just feared to lose the film business. The company faced the problem

of near sighting that the film business was better than the new digital technology, and it

also had the view of protecting the market share it had. They had believed digital

technology would lead to the cannibalization of the film business (Ochsner,2001). The

competitor’s canon and Sony managed to charge ahead and brought digital cameras,

and it was too late for Kodak to enter the game, and they witness their company

declining. In other words, Kodak had a blind faith when it came to the new technology's
 Kodak Case Study6

marketing abilities, and the company failed to adapt itself to the new consumer attitudes

and new market place. Many factors lead to the failure of the business of Kodak. Kodak

Company had an information gap during its operations and management. The

staggering blunder was that the management made was failing to anticipate the

customer needs in changing times.

While competitors of Kodak, which included Fuji and anon, were making

innovations and bringing new products on the market basing on the changing needs,

Kodak management was rotating about with the old products and could not think of

adding new products and services on the market (Bruno, 2005). There was the problem

of the management approach to get solutions to the problems the organization faced.

Kodak, as a market leader, ignored the need for change in its technology as it remained

using silver-halide technology of films (Egan, 2012). The result of sticking to the rational

thinking perspective was a big blunder that the management of Kodak made. This

should have been avoided if the company had applied the perspective of generative

thinking perspective to handle the strategic issues the origination faced.

In addition to the above, the company of Kodak was lacking initiatives of adapting

to market-changing needs, and this led to its fading gradually. The organization

management failed to realize the dangers resulting from the rival organizations'

innovations (Shih, 2016). For example, SonyCorporation introduced Mavica, which was a

filmless digital camera, and this could have acted as a signal to the management of

Kodak. Still, the management failed to realize the disaster signs. It should have adopted

a continuous renewal perspective to solve the digital problems associated. It should

 Kodak Case Study7

have helped maintain the position that Kodak had as the leading company in the

camera industry market (Lee et al., 2020). The management was also confused about

whether to go for DRP or not to go for it when there was a ruling by the digital

technology on the camera manufacturing industry. They were expected to take the risk,

but they kept quiet, which led to losing the market share.

More so, organizational agility was lacking as the company did not have strategic

creativity, which caused a misinterpretation of the line of work and the industry it was

operating in, which devastated the digital age shift. The management tackled the

problems using rigid means (Wu, and Yezhou, 2011). The mistakes seemed costly

because the company always tried to avoid making risky decisions but instead opted to

develop policies and procedures of maintaining itself in the industry. There was the

organization's overflow with complacency since Kodak failed to keep up before the

digital revolution after the Fuji organization was doing better while using the old

technology and even doing the business of roll-film. No one at the top management was

devising means of solving the problem that needed urgency, which led to the failure of

the organization's strategies. The organization failed to reinvest when it saw a decline in

the revenues and the market (Salehzadeh et al. 2017). The company observed the

disruptive forces affecting its own company as there were competition and the

introduction of new technology. They failed to embrace the new models of the business

after the disruptive changes. Yes, they managed to create a digital camera and even a

technology investment. They came to understand that the images can be shared online

but failed to realize it was a new business, not the only way to expand the business of

printing.
 Kodak Case Study8

There was a dilemma in choosing either to use a market-based view (MBV) or a

resource-based view(RBV). Kodak held supremacy in paper, film, photo processing,

and chemicals over the rivals(Saha, 2018). When introducing the new digital technology,

it became hard for the company to realize profits and benefits when using old

technology. Kodak management faced the problem that it does not hold an advantage

over rivals when digitalizing technology with the transmission, storage, retrieval,

projection solutions, and manipulation. The digital age advent has made the company

get into a dilemma. Kodak was supposed to move digital if it wanted to outcompete its

competitors more, especially in digital printing. It had no experience, and it has to

compete with Canon, Sony, and Mitsubishi. Kodak was faced with a dilemma in

choosing cooperation and competition strategy (Wu, and Yezhou, 2011). Kodak started

acquiring other companies that had technology after experiencing competition problems

with the organizations that had superior technology. Kodak needs to address the needs

of the customers and the market. The company acquired Verizon wireless and Scitex

digital printing and even bought the stakes in Nexpress solutions. This led to the

depressed cash flows for KodakCompany, and the investment community became

disinterested. The company opted for an embedded organization perspective, which

became a desperate attempt company faced, and it concentrated in the imaging

industry, and this are the company that does not have the capacity to outcompeting its

competitors with the vast technology. The company faced with the challenge of either

choosing a localization strategy or globalization.

Furthermore, the outdated and old model of sales was successful in the Eastern

market. But in the western market, there is competition because of the market due to
 Kodak Case Study9

the core competencies of having advanced technology(Nielson, 2014). This was the

challenge to Kodak to challenge global technology, which was strategically located and

advanced and this led to the decline of the company. Furthermore, Kodak was slow

when embracing the new technology change. Its product mentality caused her slow

transition to digital photography, and it even failed to innovate (Dan, 2012). This company

did not fail because of the missing digital revolution. Kodak was the first to identify the

digital revolution only that it sat back for fear of losing the lucrative business of films.

The company became ignorant when there was the reshaping of the new digital market

in the industry.

Was there a better alternative to the strategy?

The success of businesses today heavily depends on the innovation and ability to

change. The company that feels like seeking change should concentrate on the

changing market and should be having the ability to respond to the needs of the

customers in the market (Vonyó and Klein, 2018). Kodak managed to identify the

opportunity but lost it away because it was not well prepared for revolution. Kodak

sticking with traditional photography as its cost leadership strategy should have opted

for diversification, and it should have taken the risk and used digital photography. Using

the diversification strategy helps the company to escape declining (Analytical Chemistry,

1981). Therefore, the growth of the company has to focus on the interest of the

stakeholders but not on the interests of the management.

Business writers say that Kodak Company is a perfect example of the

organization that collapses as a result of disruptive innovation. The company was

generally not able to respond to digital photography. The company should have invested
 Kodak Case Study10

so much in research to get to know the customer preferences and the competitors on

the market, and this could have helped in the organization to maintain the market share

(Dan, 2012). The company should heavily employ creativity to get new products to attract

and inspire customers. It should be able to engage in other market segments like

movies and entertainment, which will help the company create a strong market share.

Kodak Company should have focused on the niche markets up to the end. In addition to

the above, Kodak had many paths to have taken if they wanted to be recognized. For

example, they could have known that it was hard for them to have one product because

other companies would outcompete the market (Banatvala, 2001). The company should

have decided to be in the business of chemical coating, and this could have given them

an upper hand in expanding the market where they could sell anything they had

produced. This would also have helped them outpacing the competitors, given the fact

that they were already the leading company in the film industry having a lot of money. In

other words, they should have diversified, which could have helped them pull with the

good management team.

Another alternative is that the company should have invested more in the sensor

and camera development. The reason is that the company had good technology that

enabled them to create suitable sensors that were used in scientific applications. They

should have got a proper manufacturer of the cameras that had enough experience in

optics. Moreover, the company was receiving high profits in the selling of photographic

roles, making it a monopoly. Therefore, they should not have dumped the opportunity

and adopted the econosphere system, which would have changed the transition (Pinelle

et al., 2012). Companies like cannon, Nikon managed to live through concentrating on
 Kodak Case Study11

professional photography just like Nokia Company. Still, Kodak refused to change and

get to know the trends in ten markets. Therefore, they should have understood the

market trend like the way other companies understood it. They should have

concentrated on a specific activity just like Nikon, which concentrated on the hardware

because people can still buy the products for more than 3 generations just like Nokia in

that people can buy the phones from Nokia and the competitors as well.

Kodak Company should have avoided the revenue losses from the competitors

and the rival organizations if it used the generative thinking perspective (GTP), which

would have helped handle the needs of the changing environment. This helps in

meeting the problems associated with the market place(TUBIOLO, 2000). Thus, it would

have helped the company to know and foresee the needs from the traditional to the

digital camera to adjust according to the changing needs of customers. I the early years

of the 1980s, Kodak company should have slowly started to transform the resources

they ad from the technology of silver-halide film to the digital system. Still, the company

did not involve in the process. This forced the company to have no options left but to

join the digital technology at different stage dilemma (Wolf, and Hanisch, 2014). More so,

for Kodak to concentrate and compete on the changing environment, they announced a

new strategy where their main aim was to attend to inkjet and display market segments.

This comes along with a change in the target market needs of the customers, like

moving away from traditional to digital technology. The main aim of the business was to

capture the market who had a belief in the hard copies printed of the images and even

give them options like kiosk printing and inkjet printers. KodakCompany handled the

challenge by setting up kiosks that could help in meeting the customers

 Kodak Case Study12

Therefore, the company must carefully present its offerings to the intended

market to outcompete the other players in the industry with a lot of technical expertise in

the market. Kodak management should not get involved in decisions of hasty

acquisitions and merging. The reason is that it would send a bad message to the

customers and the investment community(Analytical Chemistry, 1981). The decisions

have to be made basing while keeping the best organizational interests in mind. The

management has to thoroughly examine first if the acquisition or merger will be of profits

to the organization and what will be the effects of the acquisition to the customers and

to the organization at the same time. The management should have defined its target

market before entering into partnerships with other organizations. This could have

helped Kodak produce high-quality services and products with the latest technology

(Mafabi et al., 2017). Kodak management should have realized that the outdated and old

technology would be successful in the East, and there is no guarantee that it would also

be successful in the western markets. The company should start using of global

strategy, which creates the chance of utilizing the silver-halide technology and also

helps in incorporating the developed technology in marketing and production of the

services and products in the western market.

What can other companies facing disruptive change in their core business (for

example, Microsoft, Sony, Walt Disney) learn from the experience of Eastman

Kodak?

Companies facing the same problems should learn that the companies have to adapt to

the market requirements even if it requires competing with themselves. Technology can

be disruptive to companies and markets, and even it benefits consumers. The strategy
 Kodak Case Study13

is not the strategy in the market place today (Shih, 2016). The marketers have to strive

for innovation and entrepreneurial greatness, not only determining preferences on the

existing options. Marketing is not a good art that can be used when selling the products

like the way Kodak was thinking, and it is all about satisfying the customers. In fact, it is

all about keeping the company relevant to the needs of the customers (Yazdipour,

2009). Where the consumers are in charge and approach the market using the

perspective of services or products, it is not enough to make the companies want to

engage. Basing on the engineer who participated in the invention of the digital camera

of Kodak, he reacted by saying, "that's cute kid, don't tell anyone about it." The

company did not pursue that there would be a new technology that would displace it

(Matuku, 2019). Therefore, using the perspective of Kodak, the alternative of developing

a film would lead to taking away the resources since it was the big moneymaker. This is

not a good visionary way of approaching certain issues in the business (Egan, 1978). It

is always important for the company to keep hold and capture the big market. The

companies have to ensure that they look to the changes in the behaviors of the

consumers and the future trends. Kodak Company had an assumption that everybody

would continue using the film, and they never realized the advantages of digital

photography.

Another lesson is that companies should be able to remember their core

offerings brand. Surprisingly, Kodak forgot what exactly brought them, the limelight at

first. They were giving easy-to-use cameras to customers, and they had the slogan of

"you press the button, we do the rest." (Seddio,1993). After some time, the company
 Kodak Case Study14

started scrambling to compete with other organizations for digital. Disruption always

wants to make CEOs of companies to start panicking and reinvesting when there is

change (Yazdipour, 2009). The brands have to return to the original core offerings. If

Kodak had developed an easy-to-use digital camera, it would be a big organization by

now maintaining its market share.

The companies have to put their focus on value instead of focusing on the

products. There is anticipation that technology may continue to advance and evolve, but

it does not mean the value may shift, and because of this, it should not shift (Lim, and

Kim,2014). Kodak Company made a brave mistake when it focused on the products that

are investing in the film instead of concentrating on the value, which was the ability to

capture the precious moments of life (MacKnight, 1995). In other words, disruption is

not considered to be a new element concerning the external factors which erase the

advantages. Kodak's main advantage was that it had superior technology. When

introducing new technology like digital cameras, they changed the focus and started

recognizing the digital value until they realized it when it is late.

The other lesson is agility in which it has to be considered to be critical. A big

company as it had many resources concentrated in operations and research.

Theoretically, Kodak Company could have used some of the resources in responding to

emergencies and the threats the company could meet (Reneé, and Malan, 2011). This

was not done, and they were dominated by the small manufactures of Asia (Li, 2015).

There is ever-changing success amidst the changing of the market place, and this
 Kodak Case Study15

requires companies to become agile so as to react to the changes in the environment.

While previous centuries managed to reward the businesses that had excellence in

terms of techniques, this century is likely to give rewards to the organizations that can

make smart decisions.

Conclusion

Kodak Company, which was regarded to be a market leader, became bankrupt in 2012

because it had rigid approaches to innovations. In this competitive world,many

businesses are full of technology,globalization, and innovation. The success of the

business depends heavily on the company's potential to recognize market dynamics

changes,customer needs,competition, and the future trends. Kodak was the digital

revolution leader but did not keep the pace because of the drastic changing market. The

company has to use diversify strategy and be able to offer innovative products and

targeting niche markets. It should aim at retaining and attaining its economies of scale.

Diversification does not necessarily mean there will be high performance and that the

company will be successful. Still, it heavily depends on the potential to respond and

identify chance and the research made. Kodak management made many mistakes

when running the business, which involved utterly relying on the organization's internal

competencies for some good time. They then abruptly changed the strategy and
 Kodak Case Study16

merged with many organizations, which showed a negative picture to the investors.

Even if the company is faced with many problemscaused by its rival organizations, if the

company uses the management strategies to change the policies of the organization

that would be in line with the benchmarks of the industry and there would be a chance

that the Kodak can get back to its feet. In addition to the above, there are lessons that

other companies like Nokia, Microsoft and other that they can learn from the decline of

Kodak Company. The companies have to be in consideration of value not considering of

the products. The companies have to be agile in whatever business they do not like

what Kodak did. Companies have to be considering the point of remembering of their

brand core offering which will help them dominate the market not like the way Kodak

forgot their brand name.

 Kodak Case Study17

Reference List

Analytical Chemistry, 1981.Eastman Kodak Company, Kodak Laboratory and Specialty

Chemicals.53(12), pp.1348A-1348A.

Banatvala, N., 2001. Working overseas: from individual to organisational strategy. BMJ,
323(7315), pp.2-2.

Egan, J., 1978. How many surprises developed during the Kodak case. Applied Optics,
17(15), p.2265.

Shih. W. 2016. The real Lessons from Kodak’s Decline.

MINDS Brand. 2018. Why did Kodak fail and what can you learn from its
demise?.https://medium.com/@brand_minds/why-did-kodak-fail-and-what-can-
you-learn-from-its-failure-70b92793493c

Dan.A 2012. Kodak failed by asking the wrong marketing question.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/avidan/2012/01/23/kodak-failed-by-asking-the-
wrong-marketing-question/#27bc7b583d47

Disruptor daily.2016. Why Kodak failed and what entrepreneurs can learn.
https://www.disruptordaily.com/why-kodak-failed-and-what-entrepreneurs-can-
learn/

Matuku.A. 2019. Why Kodak failed and what you can learn from its downfall.
https://www.fuzu.com/blog/why-kodak-failed-what-you-can-learn-from-its-downfall

Nielson. J. 2014. Story of Kodak: How they could have saved the business.
https://www.ignitionframework.com/story-of-kodak/

Ochsner, M., 2001. Case Study: Chemical Screening at Eastman Kodak

Company. Environmental Quality Management, 10(3), pp.23-33.

Work Study, 2002. Kodak pushes out e-Skills. 51(1).

Li, E., 2015. "Deliberate Learning, Dynamic Capability and Organizational Schema: A
Case Study of Kodak." Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), p.14715.

Seddio, C., 1993. Integrating test metrics within a software engineering measurement
program at Eastman Kodak Company: A follow-up case study. Journal of
Systems and Software, 20(3), pp.227-235.
 Kodak Case Study18

MacKnight, C., 1995. Kodak Photo CD Eastman Kodak Company Kodak Information
Center Department E 343 State Street Rochester, NY 14650-0811. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 7(1), pp.129-131.

Scientific American, 1914. The Decision in the Kodak Film Case, A Bottle-stopper that
Locks. 110(12), pp.249-249.

Yuzawa, T., 2018. The digital revolution and business behaviour: the case of Kodak
versus Fujifilm. Entrepriseset histoire, 90(1), p.37.

Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, 1929. Abridged scientific publications from
the kodak research lobaratories. Vol. XI, 1927.Pp. 232. New York: Eastman
Kodak Co., 1928. 48(18), pp.461-461.

Vonyó, T. and Klein, A., 2018. Why did socialist economies fail? The role of factor inputs
reconsidered. The Economic History Review, 72(1), pp.317-345.

TUBIOLO, A., 2000. Meeting community information needs: Kodak's environmental

reporting strategy. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 7(2), pp.176-184.

Bruno, T., 2005.Kodak's “Reliable Image” Seminar. Microform & Imaging Review, 34(1).

Pinelle, D., Burbridge, B. and Kalra, N., 2012. USRC: A New Strategy for Adding Digital
Images to the Medical School Curriculum. Journal of Digital Imaging, 25(5),
pp.682-688.

Cohen, M., 1992.Digital imaging in pediatric hospitals. Journal of Digital Imaging, 5(2),
pp.79-81.

Levin, B., 2012. Innovation Paper in the June 2012 Edition of the Journal of Digital
Imaging (JDI). Journal of Digital Imaging, 25(5), pp.563-565.

Wilson, D., 1992. Compressed radiological images and workstation viewing. Journal of
Digital Imaging, 5(3), pp.168-175.

Mafabi, S., Munene, J. and Ntayi, J., 2012.Knowledge management and organisational
resilience. Journal of Strategy and Management, 5(1), pp.57-80.

Wolf, P. and Hanisch, C., 2014. Managing regional innovation strategy

projects. Organisational Project Management, 1(1), p.37.

Salehzadeh, R., Pool, J., Mohseni, A. and Tahani, G., 2017. Factors influencing
organisational performance: the role of knowledge sharing and organisational
agility. International Journal of Business Excellence, 11(3), p.344.
 Kodak Case Study19

Wu, W. and Yezhou, Y., 2011.Organisational knowledge transformation and its

influencing factors in individual, team and organisational level. International
Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 8(3/4), p.192.

Mupemhi, S. and Muposhi, A., 2018.Organisational Factors Influencing E-business

Adoption in Zimbabwe’s Manufacturing Sector. Journal of Economics and
Behavioral Studies, 10(2), p.176.

Reneé, N. and Malan, N., 2011. Exploring the interconnectedness among strategy
development, shared mental models, organisational learning and organisational
change. International Journal of Learning and Change, 5(3/4), p.227.

Saha, N., 2018. Organisational agility and KM strategy: Are they effective tools for
achieving sustainable organisational excellence?. New Trends and Issues
Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(10), p.110.

IRVINE, K., 2011. Collaboration as a strategy to accelerate change. Journal of

Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 8(3), pp.313-326.

Egan, J., 2012. Public relations-accidents: What gas companies can learn from “smart
meter” missteps. Natural Gas & Electricity, 29(6), pp.14-19.

Baker, S., 1998. What Every Business Should Learn from MICROSOFT. Journal of
Business Strategy, 19(5), pp.36-41.

Yazdipour, R., 2009. What can venture capitalists and entrepreneurs learn from
behavioral economists?. Strategic Change, 18(7-8), pp.241-247.

Shanklin, W., 2002. What businesses can learn from the movies. Business Horizons,
45(1), pp.23-28.

Shanklin, W., 2002. Joint stock companies with rearranged public ownership: What can
we learn from recent Chinese and East European experience with state
enterprises?. China Economic Review, 4(2), pp.181-193.

Vaněk, M., Mikoláš, M. and Žváková, K., 2012.Evaluation Methods of Swot Analysis /
MetodyVyhodnoceníSwotAnalýzy. GeoScience Engineering, 58(2), pp.23-31.

Lee, J., Lee, S. and Jung, K., 2020. Balanced SWOT: Revisiting SWOT Analysis
through Failure Management and Success Management. SSRN Electronic
Journal.

Pandi, D., 2020. SWOT Analysis of Joint Liability Group. International Journal of
Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(5), pp.1872-1877.
 Kodak Case Study20

Lim, K. and Kim, M., 2014.A SWOT Analysis of Design Elements of Korean
MOOCs. Journal of Digital Convergence, 12(6), pp.615-624.

MacKnight, C., 1995. Kodak Photo CD Eastman Kodak Company Kodak Information
Center Department E 343 State Street Rochester, NY 14650-0811. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 7(1), pp.129-131.