當傳統底片被數位感光技術所破壞式創新時，美國傳統底片廠商柯達試圖讓公司轉型，多數評論都歸咎柯達是被數位相機所擊敗，但柯達在1975年即率先研發數位相機並取得專利，而後在1995年之後的數位相機市場都有一定的盈餘及市佔率，同時也有掌握高階數位相機的多種技術資源，數位相機的發展似乎不是讓公司衰退的直接原因，而柯達股價更在1997年能創歷史新高。在數位相機逐步取代光學底片的同時，柯達公司卻是面對處理沖印部門、底片生產及相關事業，在2001年至2010年十年間裁員幅度高達75.7%，也為此相對付出高額資遣費。不過在大量裁員後保留高階主管讓人事成本提高，十年內的員工平均薪資卻成長71.9%，這都是面對企業轉型中的現象。對於底片將被取代的認知，讓柯達在2002年開始積極投資相關事業，包含發行十年公司債投資數位化醫療影像系統（PACS），但三年後只以原投資額55.3%出售數位醫療影像，共減損19億美金，而2012年後需償還公司債高達23億美元以上。以柯達為例，回應市場出現的技術劇烈破壞性創新方式，本研究認為除了Christensen（1997）所提出的“創新的兩難”（innovator's dilemma）外，其公司內部所面對的各種“組織的兩難”（organizational dilemma）是值得探討的。本研究提出六項觀察組織兩難的命題，包含股東、董事會、高階經理人、財務現況、產業組織及競爭者六項構面，其核心的組織兩難存在於企業代理責任的議題，柯達公司股權分散及高階經理人持股少讓其決策傾向短期財務目標及低風險，不利於公司在破壞式創新環境中的發展。因僅能採用單一個案企業，本研究也希望未來能延伸其他企業個案進行綜合比較。

Traditional chemical film was displacing by the development of digital imaging technology as disruptive innovation. Most of industrial comments tend to regard the traditional film giant company, Kodak, was defeat by digital imaging technology, or fail to transform this new developing trend. In the case study, Kodak company researchers develop prototype of the digital camera system actively in 1975, gained the remarkable market share and net profit from digital camera department in 1995, and meanwhile held plenty of critical high-level digital cameras technology. It seems that recession of Kodak is not related to the development of digital camera industry directly.When the traditional film was replacing by digital imaging development, Kodak Company faced 75.7% employment cuts in the departments of print and film from 2001 to 2010. Kodak Company, therefore, paid huge severance cost more than ever. Ironically, the annual salary per person was growing 71.9% in the same period of time, due to the remain of high rank managers and officers after downsize organization. This was a special phenomenon in this case study. Kodak Company, in the digital transforming trend, invested the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) in the medical imaging industry with issuances the 10 years long-term debts. The PACS department was sold by value of investment assets 55.3% in 2007, which caused US 1.9 billion lost. Kodak Company faces the 2.3 billion dollars debt in 2012.In the case study of Kodak Company, firms to response the disruptive innovation of digital imaging technology, in addition to Christensen's (1997) ”innovator's dilemma”, is the ”organizational dilemma”. The study provided six determines to discuss the organizational dilemma, including the shareholders, board of directors, CEO, financial, industrial chain and competitors. We used a single company case to discuss the organizational dilemma, hope to extend a comprehensive comparison of other companies in the future.