STAKEHOLDERS AND NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR COCA - COLAStak.docx

STAKEHOLDERS AND NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
FOR COCA - COLA
Stakeholders and New Product Development for Coca - Cola
ShaRon Jones
South University
Strategic Marketing | MBA6011 S01
Octoberber 2015
Professor: Matula
STAKE HOLDERS AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT
There is a story inside of every bottle that leaves the Coca-Cola
bottling plant. The most important stakeholders of our
organization, the consumer continues to be the driving force
behind these stories. Along with the community, our bottlers,
suppliers, partners and nonprofit organizations, and the
countless others that share a stake in the organization we have
formed a bond that is beneficial to us all. Coca – Cola has relied
on them for their valued opinions and insights for the shaping of
the sustainability reporting process. Stakeholders are
proactively engaged in this yearly accountability tool. In the
past, Coca – Cola has engaged the input from internal
stakeholders (our employees) as well as external stakeholders
(the community). Namely an organization known as Ceres,
which is an organization of investors that have formed a
coalition to help companies stay up to date with the challenges
of sustainability reporting.
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainabilityreport/our-
reporting/stakeholder-engagement.html
STAKEHOLDER INPUT IN NEW PRODUCT

DEVELOPMENT AND SUCCESS
Coca – Cola created the Golden Triangle partnership to enhance
stakeholder involvement work that includes key input from the
public, private and civil society sectors. The recognition and
embracement of ideas forms collaborative partnerships that
achieve a greater collective impact than would be possible by
any one organization or sector working in isolation. The Golden
Triangle partnership became an integral part of the Coca – Cola
business strategy, and when managed well, became a powerful
tool for sustainable business growth and progress that was
highlighted in their annual sustainability reporting.
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainability/stakeholder-
engagement
STRATEGIES USED BY KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN
CONTRIBUTION OF NEW PRODUCT AND COMMUNTY
DEVELOPMENT
In August of 2015, the first-ever Coca-Cola bottling plant in
Laos officially opened for business. This bottling plant located
in the Saithani District of the Vientiane province
produces Fanta, Coca-Cola, and Sprite beverages along with
other popular Coca Cola sparkling brands with a distinct
possibility of additional production lines for new beverage
products in development at a later date. Before the opening of
the Laos plant, Thailand was the major supplier of Coca, Cola
products to this area.
“With the establishment of this plant, the Coca – Cola brand
proudly manufactures and distributes beverages locally in each
of the 10 ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)
member countries, providing tangible economic benefit to the
communities served in that area. This profitable relationship has
produced an economic growth annually of 5 percent. This boost
in sales has raised the organization’s confidence level for a
more prosperous and continued economic growth worldwide.
The hope is that Coca – Cola and Southeast Asia will continue

to share in this partnership of investment and prosperity in this
region of the world.” (Kent 2015)
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/coca-cola-unbottled/first-
coca-cola-bottling-plant-in-laos-open
COCA – COLA AND ITS COMPETITVE ADVANTAGE DUE
TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT)
According to Ed Steinike, Vice President and CIO of Coca –
Cola, “IT and marketing are very close partners at Coca-Cola
today. Coke is spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year
on digital marketing and that number will, no doubt, continue to
rise. Our marketers started to think more seriously about digital
channels five years ago or so. As mobile adoption expanded,
they started to build a direct connection with our customers by
pushing mobile applications for social-media sites and our
loyalty programs, such as My Coke Rewards”. (Steinike 2013)
At the 2012 Summer Olympics, the IT dream team of Coca -
Cola created mobile applications that could be used on both I
phone and Android devices alike. It was used on over 100
countries in a digital-marketing event. This around the globe
event boosted Coca – Colas impact on the technology world
beyond their wildest dreams. The IT department even designed
applications used by other external agencies.
Ed Steinike CIO of Coca – Cola Bottling Inc.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/driving
_the_top_line_with_technology_an_interview_with_the_cio_of_
coca-cola
References
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/coca-cola-unbottled/first-
coca-cola-bottling-plant-in-laos-open
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainability/stakeholder-
engagement
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/driving

_the_top_line_with_technology_an_interview_with_the_cio_of_
coca-cola
©Copyright 2004 Critical Core, Inc.
Making decisions in an uncertain world: Intuition vs analysis
Jane E. Mather, Ph.D.
President, Critical Core, Inc.
Prepared for Occupiers Property Databank Annual Conference,
February 2004
"Truly successful decision making relies on a balance between
deliberate and instinctive
thinking." Malcolm Gladwell, Blink: The Power of Thinking
Without Thinking.
No where is there a better example of this than in the world of
corporate real estate and facilities
management. In a world of continuous change, corporate real
estate executives need good
intuitive strategies and reasoned decision making. Experienced
real estate professionals have
consistently demonstrated well-honed skills for intuitively
identifying the right strategies. During
negotiations, quick calculations can be invaluable.

Nevertheless, as other corporate disciplines increase the
sophistication of their analysis, senior
executives have begun to expect the same from real estate
professionals. They still want
simple summaries, but they want to be sure that there is
reasoned analysis behind them. They
want real estate professionals to set targets and demonstrate that
they are achieving them. In
addition, in a world of change, they must explain the risks of
their recommendations,
This presentation addresses how portfolio managers and
strategic planners can make better
decisions in an uncertain business environment. It considers
when intuition is sufficient and
when a more detailed analysis can be beneficial. After a review
of some of the basic issues in
decision making in an uncertain environment, it turns to some
typical strategies for managing
uncertainty to show which of those can benefit from a more
technical analysis. Then it
addresses the role of metrics in decision making and
demonstrating performance.

Role of costs in decision making
In workplace decisions, the goal is to identify the solution that
provides the best balance of
productivity enhancement, cost control, and risk minimization.
While these goals are widely
recognized, most of our decision making revolves around costs.
In some situations, costs
maybe taking too central a role.
Making Decisions in an Uncertain World p. 2
Costs versus productivity. It’s important to remember the
relative role of real estate in the
organization. Workplace costs per person, which typically
include real estate, facility
operations, and furniture costs, and should also include
workplace-specific data and
telecommunication costs, can range from £4,000 to £8,000 per
person. At the same time, the
salary and benefits of the person, which reflect the productivity
added by the worker using those
workplace assets, can range from £20,000 to £80,000 per
person. Thus a 5% reduction in

costs, which would total £200 to £400 per person, would not be
warranted if it led to even a 1%
reduction in productivity.
Costs versus risk. Much of the decision making in an uncertain
business environment reflects
the trade-off between cost and risks. Often it can be considered
within the framework of
whether the insurance that provides flexibility is worth the cost.
There are two primary
approaches for evaluating these trade-offs: expected net present
value, which assigns
probabilities to various outcomes, and simulations, which
demonstrate the range of possible
outcomes.
We have used expected net present value analysis to evaluate
the appropriate term lengths and
options for leases in different situations. This analysis will be
described in the section on how
analytical approaches can be used to evaluate different
approaches to managing uncertainty.
Simulation approaches can be beneficial in a number of
situations. As financial analysis has

become so central to decision making, simulations can help us
understand whether the
estimated cost differences are really meaningful within the
context of uncertain assumptions.
They can also identify the risks that accompany a
recommendation, for example, a long term
lease might reduce costs, but might lead to additional costs if
that space is not needed in the
future. Figure 2 shows how a simulation analysis can identify
the relative costs and risks.
Decision makers might determine that solution 3 is the best, but
they need to note that the
reduced cost comes with the risk of higher costs in some
situations.
From a technical perspective, simulation analysis is most
beneficial when the range of potential
outcomes is not symmetrical, for example, due to limits on price
changes, such as upward only
rent reviews, or due limits on losses, such as cancellation
options.

We’ve used simulations and related techniques to price
cancellation, contraction, and expansion
options, that is, to identify the increase in rent that a landlord
should charge or a tenant should
be willing to pay. As described by Tony Key in his presentation
at last year’s conference, these
approaches typically do not add much more value than intuition.
In our projects, our estimates
have shown that the tenant ought to be willing to pay £5 to £12
per square meter ($1 to $2 per
square foot) for various options. The exact pricing is difficult
because we do not have sufficient
information to accurately estimate the likelihood of various
market rent trends in the future.
These techniques can be beneficial when decision makers need
to demonstrate that an option
is worth at least a specific price, but they don’t provide
sufficient information to provide an exact
value. Thus intuition is often sufficient for evaluating real
estate options.
Strategies for managing uncertainty
The first step in assessing decision making is to review various
strategies than can help

manage the uncertainty. In this section, we review some
suggested strategies for managing
Figure 1. Simulations enable planners to review the costs and
risks of each
solution
$150
$156
$160
$170
$140
$180
Occupancy
Costs (millions)
$130
$164
Expected cost for
solution 3 - $150 mil.
Expected cost for
Expected cost for

Each box shows range of
costs for one decile (10%)
of cost outcomes.
$150
$156
$160
$170
$140
$180
Occupancy
Costs (millions)
$130
$164
Expected cost for
Expected cost for
Expected cost for
Each box shows range of
costs for one decile (10%)
of cost outcomes.

uncertainty and assess when more sophisticated analysis
approaches can add value to
implementing these strategies. The strategies considered
include:
• Better headcount forecasts,
• Duration matching
• More flexible work environments
• Clustering
Better headcount forecasts. Many organizations have tried to
manage uncertainty by trying to
develop better headcount forecasts and thus reduce uncertainty.
Unfortunately, business unit
executives are generally uncomfortable providing a one-year
forecast, while real estate
professions are looking for three to five year forecasts.
Some real estate professionals have suggested quantitative
approaches for headcount

forecasting. They range from relating headcount forecasts to
revenue projections, if available,
to complex econometric time-series methodologies. Certainly
business unit revenue forecasts
and headcount forecasts are beneficial, but most of the more
complex forecasting
methodologies provide few insights within the real estate
context. As with option pricing,
planners generally do not have sufficient data to make use of
sophisticated forecasting
techniques. Spending more time talking with the businesses,
combined with intuition, will reap
more benefits.
As part of these discussions, corporate real estate executives
should on focus on achieving a
better understanding of the range of possible outcomes. For
those who want a more systematic
approach to specifying these ranges, we suggest a review of the
historical values specified in
Figure 2. This matrix highlights the different types of business
units and the types of historical
information about employment and revenues that can be
beneficial.

With this understanding of the possible future scenarios,
planners can intuitively specify lease
terms and options to provide the flexibility needed to match the
wide range of business
outcomes, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Duration matching. In an uncertain environment, most real
estate professionals recognize that
the low-cost long-term lease is not always the best solution.
Many have suggested shorter-term
leases to provide the needed flexibility and some have
suggested “duration matching” as one
approach to identify the appropriate lease term. Duration
matching in real estate is similar to
this concept within the financial sector. This approach stresses
the importance of matching the
duration of the lease to the demand uncertainty, shorter leases
for more uncertain business
environments. Some go further and recommend that the lease
term match the expected life
cycle for the business or product. While the former is certainly

true, the more specific focus on
the product life cycle can lead to too much flexibility because
other factors are not being
considered.
Evaluating lease term lengths and ownership structure depends
on whether the real estate
executive is looking at individual properties, such as field sales
offices, or a portfolio of
properties within a city or considering a portfolio of “fungible”
properties whose activities can be
relocated among the properties, for example, a campus or a
number of call center facilities.
For individual properties, analytical models using probabilities
can be used to identify the
appropriate term lengths and options. Landlords charge more
for shorter-term leases due to the
amortization of tenant improvement costs and a premium to
compensate the landlord for the risk
Figure 2. Historical workforce and revenue characteristics for
estimating
the range of outcomes
Range of Rates of Change for Workforce / Revenue Business
Unit

Categories
Share of
Workforce Average Recession Recovery
Mature business units -
stable, low variance
Mature business units -
cyclical, high variance
Timing for Workforce / Revenue
Average rate of
change
Time to
maturity
Time to closure
New, growing business
unit
Contracting business
unit
of having to release the space at the end of the term.

Probability analysis show when an
organization should be willing to pay more to eliminate the risk
of be caught with excess space.
A formal term length and option analysis can be completed by
considering the relative costs of
space with different term lengths and options, the tenant-
specific improvements, market rent
forecasts, and the historical probabilities that the tenant of this
type will want to move. With
these estimates, one can identify when the probability of
moving is sufficiently high to warrant a
short-term lease, and when the probability of staying is
sufficiently high to suggest the long-term
lease. In the situation described in Figure 4, the probability of
staying that would warrant a
longer lease term (in this case from 3 to 6 years) ranged from
40% to 60%. In other words,
even if the tenant had only a 60% chance of staying it would be
better to choose the longer
lease. (The analysis in the UK is likely to be different in the
US because the US has had a
Figure 3. Matching supply to range of outcomes with staggered
leases and
options

Cancellation
option for
Lease F
Square Feet
(millions)
Owned
Space
4
2
20
04
20
08
Building
planned for
owned land
1
20
06
20
10
3
Leased

Space
Expansion
option for
Lease C
Bldg A
Bldg B
Lease D
Lease C
Lease E
Lease F
Lease G
Space required
with forecasted
growthLease H
Space required
with high-growth
scenario
Legend
Planned building
Expansion option
Cancellation option
Leased space
Owned space

Space required
with low-growth
scenario
20
12
Cancellation
option for
Lease F
Square Feet
(millions)
Owned
Space
4
2
20
04
20
08
Building
planned for
owned land
1
20
06

20
10
3
Leased
Space
Expansion
option for
Lease C
Bldg A
Bldg B
Lease D
Lease C
Lease E
Lease F
Lease G
Space required
with forecasted
growthLease H
Space required
with high-growth
scenario

Legend
Planned building
Expansion option
Cancellation option
Leased space
Owned space
Legend
Planned building
Expansion option
Cancellation option
Leased space
Owned space
Legend
Planned building
Expansion option
Cancellation option
Leased space
Owned space
Space required
with low-growth
scenario
20
12
stronger push for short-term leases to provide flexibility than in
the UK.) The challenge in this

case is gaining the trust from senior executives, that if your
organization is left with excess
space, they would understand that the decision was based on
sound analysis that considered
this risk.
As illustrated in this analysis, term length analysis should go
beyond the life cycle of the
business activity and also reflect amount of tenant specific
improvements within a space. One
of the primary downsides of a short-term lease is the need to
renew the lease if the tenant
decides to stay. When there are tenant specific improvements,
the tenant is at a disadvantage
because the landlord knows it will cost a great deal to recreate
these improvements at another
location.
There are many examples in which the amount of tenant specific
improvements drives the
approach to flexibility. For example, a leading high-tech
manufacturing company has production
plants with products that have very short, and uncertain, product
life cycles. They don’t follow

the pure duration matching example and negotiate a short-term
lease. Instead they own these
properties since these factories are core to their business and
they can be retooled to meet
future business needs. They understand that if they leased the
property and decided to renew,
they would be in a very poor negotiating position.
Figure 4. Probabilities of staying that warrant longer lease
terms
6-year lease,
no cancellation option
3-year lease,
no credit for TI amortization
6-year lease,
canc. penalty = unamort TI
+ 1 year gross rent
3-year lease, fixed renewal rate
½ credit for TI amortization
Tenant Improvement Requirements
$25 / sf $40 / sf $75 / sfLease Comparisons
62% 50% 35%
60% 50% 40%

6-year lease,
no cancellation option
3-year lease,
no credit for TI amortization
6-year lease,
canc. penalty = unamort TI
+ 1 year gross rent
3-year lease, fixed renewal rate
½ credit for TI amortization
Tenant Improvement Requirements
$25 / sf $40 / sf $75 / sfLease Comparisons
62% 50% 35%
60% 50% 40%
Some organizations are increasing their lease flexibility through
portfolio contracts with real
estate owners. These contracts enable the tenants to give back a
certain amount of space
across their portfolio as part of the contract. As in the case of
shorter lease lengths, this

flexibility comes at a cost. In this case, the landlord or owner
may not need to charge as much
for the flexibility because they are able to limit the cost across
portfolios and because they may
win leases that they would not otherwise have gotten because of
the opportunity to be part of
this more flexible national contracts.
More flexible work environments. Many organizations have
increased the flexibility of their
portfolios by providing more flexible work environments,
through strategies such as hotelling, or
some other form of shared officing, and more standardized
space. Both of these situations
achieve flexibility by limiting the extent to which the space is
customized to the occupant. Some
organizations that have implemented hotelling approaches have
found that the cost reduction
was minimal but that true benefits were the increased flexibility
they achieved during tight real
estate markets and the increased worker satisfaction of those
who appreciated the ability to
work remotely.

Clustering. While it is important to understand the demand
uncertainty for individual spaces, it
is less important when considering a group of fungible
properties. Large organizations can
consolidate activities into one general location, for example,
within a campus or collection of
buildings. Then the risk that any one individual business unit
needs more or less space can be
diversified across other business units. While one group is
growing another might be shrinking.
Once more, the lease term does not need to match the specific
life cycle for a project.
Over the years, we’ve seen significant improvement in
organization taking advantage of the
benefits of consolidation. In major locations, most
organizations no longer let individual
business units go out on their own to secure properties. At the
same time, this approach can be
taken too far. When there are significant moving costs and
reconfiguration costs to support
different business needs, the benefits of consolidation may be
less than costs. In addition,
users need to consider their need to diversify activities across
locations.

CoreNet Global’s Core 2010 resource classifications present a
concept that complements
clustering. In this case, the workplace organization classifies
its the properties based on their
“commitment” to the overall property portfolio, identifying
those properties that are core to the
portfolio and other properties which are more “flexible” and
easier to dispose of if not needed.
In this way, when companies are making long-term plans they
can focus their major investments
in core properties and avoid decisions to make major
investments in “flexible” properties. At the
same time, they need to ensure that they have enough short-term
flexible space to respond to
changing business requirements.
The challenge in these situations is identifying the right balance
of owned properties, long-term
leases, and short-term leases. Generally, a good balance can be
achieved intuitively, for

example, by using an approach similar to that shown earlier in
Figure 3.
In other disciplines, optimization modeling for inventory
management and supply chain
management provide key insights into setting the appropriate
capacity when there demand is
uncertain. These techniques, which combine financial modeling
and management science,
have enabled organizations to save millions of dollars. We are
starting to do some analysis in
this area but don’t have any clear findings on our ability to find
better solutions using this
approach.
Once a business has developed a cluster of properties, it can be
a very complex analysis
process to determine how to best relocate business activities
when business requirements
change. In these situations, we have found significant added
value of through more
sophisticated analysis approaches. To evaluate these situations,
we have developed
proprietary software that extends the optimization modeling
techniques mentioned above. Like

internet search engines that quickly and systematically search
through millions of web sites,
mathematical optimization techniques quickly search through
the possible relocations to find the
set that best meet the user’s goals and requirements. This
approach goes beyond databases
and spreadsheets, enabling users to consider millions of
different combinations of real estate
relocation, construction and other workplace activities to find
the combination that best meet
their goals.
The savings from better analysis in this area can be in the
millions. In a back-office
consolidation for a financial services firm, we identified a
solution that met all the business
requirements, would have reduced labor and real estate costs by
over $20 million, and would
have reduced the number of lay-offs required by one-third
through better relocation of activities
to locations where workers can be retrained for new positions.
In another situation, the

consolidation of two financial firms’ properties within one city,
we identified a solution that saved
$16 million by relocating activities into spaces that required
less reconfiguration and freeing up
space that had greater sublease value.
In some cases, we find the same solutions that we identified
intuitively. The advantage of
optimization modeling in these situation is that it provides a
systematic framework to include all
relevant factors and enables users to quickly try many different
alternatives. This process also
enables real estate executives to show senior executives that
they have considered all of the
possible alternatives.
Metrics
“The single most important reason why corporate real estate
executives and facilities managers
fail to have an influence in the boardroom is that they lack the
information to demonstrate that
they are doing a great job.” Christopher Hedley, “Getting to
grips with information.”

Increasingly, senior executives are evaluating the performance
of workplace organizations
through selected metrics. This trend is likely to accelerate amid
greater concern over corporate
accountability. To the extent that decision makers are evaluated
on these metrics, they also
drive decision making
While workplace organizations recognize that success depends
on more than costs, costs
continue to receive the greatest focus. A common metric is the
cost per person housed or
served. To explain performance, this metrics can be
decomposed into three primary
components. Changes in each of these components drives
changes in occupancy costs.
Consistent measures. To provide valuable measures of
performance and to motivate good
decisions, metrics need be consistent and accurately reflect cost
differences. Often the
information for these metrics resides in separate, tactically-
focused databases. Combining data
from different systems can lead to multiple values for the same

data and inconsistencies.
Before workplace executives can demonstrate performance, they
need address more resources
to making sure that their data meets both their strategic needs as
well as their tactical needs.
Cost
Persons Housed
Cost
Square Foot
Square Foot
Seat
=
Seats
Persons Housed * *
Cost
Persons Housed
Cost
Square Foot
Square Foot
Seat
=
Seats

Persons Housed * *
One of the areas that is most often mismeasured is the cost of
capital, as measured in the cost
of owned properties relative to leased properties. Most
organization now require a discounted
net present value analysis for major decisions. Through this
approach, the analysis explicitly
reflects the fact that if the capital wasn’t invested in the
workplace assets, it could be invested
elsewhere. Yet, when it comes to metrics and chargebacks, the
cost of capital that is
measured in the discount rate is ignored. The cost of owned
property often only includes
depreciation, operating expenses, and property taxes. There is
no charge for capital invested;
it’s like having a mortgage with zero interest.
When performance is based on calculations involving these
measures, this oversight can drive
poor decisions. Within the workplace organization, business

considerations may suggest
leasing property but the performance metrics will be lower if
the properties are owned. For
business units occupying the real estate, owned properties may
look less expensive as well.
For example, a real estate organization for a financial service
firm recommended that some
business units relocate from Manhattan to less expensive
locations in New Jersey. Once this
space was vacated, they would then be able to lease the space to
outside tenants at the current
high market rates. But because the business unit was being
charged only depreciation and
operating expenses, its costs in Manhattan appeared less than
those in New Jersey. But once
the real estate organization shifted their charges for owned
properties to be market rates, the
business unit’s cost reflected the true opportunity cost, and the
business unit leaders readily
agreed that New Jersey was a smart move.
A key challenge in demonstrating good performance is being
able to explain why any negative
changes are not the result of poor performance. It is not

sufficient to say that increasing costs
reflect circumstances beyond the workplace organization’s
control. Executives need to be able
to show that these negative results were anticipated, and that the
cost to avoid them was too
great compared to the benefits. Better comparative data and
more comprehensive decision
making, including some of the techniques described earlier, will
help in these explanations.
As part of this process, workplace organization are not just
responsible for reporting these
measures, they also must be able to set targets and then explain
the differences when the
targets aren’t met.
Setting the targets for these metrics can be even more
challenging than explaining them.
While it might seem possible to use the simple decomposition
specified earlier to set targets,

this approach can lead to unrealistic forecasts for improvement,
setting the workplace
organization up for failure. Figure 5 shows the results of
implementing a hotelling system to
reduce space usage estimated through the simple metrics and
through a more comprehensive
analysis approach. While the simple analysis projects
significant cost savings, the
comprehensive model shows almost no change. The simple
analysis did not take into account
the implementation costs and the limited opportunities for
disposing of the excess space.
Conclusion
Workplace organizations generally lag behind their counterparts
in other corporate disciplines in
adopting more sophisticated analysis approaches. In this paper,
we’ve described several ways
in which workplace decisions can be improved:
• Focus on a range of outcomes rather than point estimates
• Use probabilities and simulations to compare costs and risks
Figure 5. Metrics forecasts vs comprehensive forecasts for cost
reductions
through increasing hotelling implementation

$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Init
ial 200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
C
os
t /

P
H
Business As
Usual, Costs
Grow, No
Relocation
New Guidelines,
Consolidation with
Amortized Initial
Costs
New Guidelines,
Consolidation no
Initial Costs
Forecast from
Metrics
• Consider both product life cycles and tenant-specific
improvements in setting ownership
structure and lease terms
• Cluster properties and identify those that are core to the
organization
• Ensure that metrics are consistent
• Use comprehensive models, not metrics, for forecasts

These recommendations and the related analytical approaches
can lead to better decisions and
the ability to demonstrate the value of the workplace
organization. Even if workplace executives
can identify good recommendations intuitively, senior
executives are demanding more
accountability and that will require more comprehensive
analysis.
Common misconceptions of critical thinking
SHARON BAILIN, ROLAND CASE,
JERROLD R. COOMBS and LEROI B. DANIELS
In this paper, the ® rst of two, we analyse three widely-held
conceptions of critical
thinking: as one or more skills, as mental processes, and as sets
of procedures. Each
view is, we contend, wrong-headed, misleading or, at best,
unhelpful. Some who write
about critical thinking seem to muddle all three views in an
unenlightening meÂ lange.
Apart from the errors or inadequacies of the conceptions
themselves, they promote or
abet misconceived practices for teaching critical thinking.
Together, they have led to
the view that critical thinking is best taught by practising it. We
o� er alternative

proposals for the teaching of critical thinking.
Critical thinking is a subject of considerable current interest,
both in terms
of theory and pedagogy. A great deal is written about critical
thinking,
conferences on the subject abound, and educational initiatives
aimed at
fostering critical thinking proliferate.1 It is our view that much
of the
theoretical work and many of the pedagogical endeavours in this
area are
misdirected because they are based on faulty conceptions of
critical think-
ing. Critical thinking is frequently conceptualized in terms of
skills, pro-
cesses, procedures and practice. Much of the educational
literature either
refers to cognitive or thinking skills or equates critical thinking
with certain
mental processes or procedural moves that can be improved
through
practice. In this paper we attempt to explain the misconceptions
inherent
in such ways of conceptualizing critical thinking. It is important
to note
that much of the literature contains a pervasive miasma of
overlapping uses
of such terms as skill, process, procedure, behaviour, mental
operations,
j. curriculum studies, 1999, vol. 31, no. 3, 269± 283
S haron Bailin, a professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby,
British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6, is interested in

philosophical inquiries into critical
thinking, creativity and aesthetic education. Her publications
include Reason and V alues:
New Essays in Philosophy of Education (Calgary, AB: Detselig,
1993), co-edited with John P.
Portelli.
Roland Case, an associate professor in the Faculty of Education,
Simon Fraser University,
conducts research in social studies and legal and global
education. His most recent book is
The Canadian Anthology of Social S tudies: Issues and S
trategies (Burnaby, BC: Faculty of
Education, Simon Fraser University), co-edited with Penney
Clark.
Jerrold R. Coombs, a professor in the Faculty of Education,
University of British Columbia,
has published extensively on ethical issues in education and the
development of competence
in practical reasoning. His publications include Applied Ethics:
A Reader (Oxford: Black-
well, 1993), co-edited with Earl R. Winkler.
L eRoi B. Daniels, a professor emeritus in the Faculty of
Education, University of British
Columbia, is interested in philosophy of mind and legal
education. He is currently editing
(with Roland Case) the `Critical Challenges Across the
Curriculum’ series (Burnaby, BC:
Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University).
Journal of Curriculum S tudies ISSN 0022± 0272 print/ISSN
1366± 5839 online Ñ 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/JNLS/cus.htm
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/JNLS/cus.htm

etc. We thus ® nd similar kinds of error and confusion about
critical
thinking under super® cially di� erent ways of talking. We
have tried to
focus on plausibly distinct uses of skill, process and procedure
in our
critiques. Our arguments will lay the groundwork for o� ering a
new
conception based on di� erent foundational assumptions in the
following
paper on this theme.
Cr i ti c a l th i n ki n g a s s ki l l
Many educators and theorists appear to view the task of
teaching critical
thinking as primarily a matter of developing thinking skills.
Indeed, the
discourse on thinking is su� used with skill talk. Courses and
conferences
focus on the development of thinking skills and references to
skills appear
in much of the literature.2 Even leading theorists in the area of
critical
thinking conceptualize critical thinking largely in terms of skill.
Thus, for
example, Siegel (1988: 39, 41) writes of the critical thinker as
possessing à
certain character as well as certain skills’ , and makes reference
to `a wide
variety of reasoning skills’ . Similarly, Paul (1984: 5) refers to
critical
thinking skills and describes them as `a set of integrated macro-
logical
skills’ . The Delphi Report on critical thinking (Facione 1990),

which
purports to be based on expert consensus in the ® eld, views
critical thinking
in terms of cognitive skills in interpretation, analysis,
evaluation, inference,
explanation and self-regulation.
It is important to note that the term s̀kill’ can be used in a
variety of
senses and that, as a consequence, some of the discussion of
skills in critical
thinking is relatively unproblematic. In some instances s̀kill’ is
used to
indicate that an individual is pro® cient at the task in question.
It is used, in
this context, in an achievement sense. A skilled reasoner is one
who is able
to reason well and to meet the relevant criteria for good
reasoning. The use
of skill in this context focuses attention on students being
capable of
intelligent performance as opposed to merely having
propositional knowl-
edge about intelligent performance. Thus, someone who is
thinking criti-
cally can do more than cite a de® nition for ad hominem. He or
she will
notice inappropriate appeals to an arguer’ s character in
particular argu-
mentative contexts. Clearly, being a critical thinker involves,
among other
things, having a certain amount of `know-how’. Such thinkers
are skilled,
then, in the sense that they must be able to ful® ll relevant
standards of good
thinking. Conceptualizing critical thinking as involving skill in

this
achievement sense is relatively benign.
However, some of the discussion of skills in the context of
critical
thinking is more problematic. There is a strong tendency among
educators
to divide educational goals or objectives into three distinct
kinds: knowl-
edge, skills (i.e. abilities), and attitudes (i.e. values), and to
assign critical
thinking to the category of skills.3 Conceiving of critical
thinking as a skill
in this sense implies more than simply that an individual is a
competent or
pro® cient thinker. It is based on a conception of skill as an
identi® able
operation which is generic and discrete. There are di� culties
with both of
these notions. We will begin with the problems entailed in
viewing skills as
270 s. bailin ET A L .
generic, i.e. once learned, they can be applied in any ® eld of
endeavour; the
problems involved in viewing skills as discrete will be dealt
with later.
Skills as generic
The identi® cation of critical thinking with skill in the tripartite
division of
educational goals separates critical thinking from the

development of
knowledge, understanding and attitudes. Critical thinking is
seen to involve
generic operations that can be learned in themselves, apart from
any
particular knowledge domains, and then transferred to or
applied in
di� erent contexts. Thus, for example, Worsham and Stockton
(1986: 11,
12) claim that t̀here are some skills that are basic and common
to most
curriculum tasks (for example, gathering information, ® nding
the main
idea, determining meaning)’ . They further state that:
Most curriculum materials at the high school level require that
students
analyze, synthesize, and evaluate as well as to[sic] create new
`products’, such
as original oral and written pieces and artistic creations.
Students are
expected to apply the appropriate thinking skills to accomplish
these tasks.
In a similar vein, Beyer (1987: 163) makes reference to discrete
thinking
skills and claims that:
To be pro® cient in a thinking skill or strategy means to be able
to use that
operation e� ectively and e� ciently on one’s own in a variety
of appropriate
contexts.
The separation of knowledge and critical thinking is fraught
with

di� culties however. If the claim that critical thinking skills are
generic is
taken to mean that these skills can be applied in any context
regardless of
background knowledge, then the claim seems clearly false.
Background
knowledge in the particular area is a precondition for critical
thinking to
take place. A person cannot analyse a particular chemical
compound if he or
she does not know something about chemistry, and without an
under-
standing of certain historical events a person will be unable to
evaluate
competing theories regarding the causes of World War I.
Many theorists acknowledge the necessity of background
knowledge for
critical thinking but still maintain a separation between
knowledge and the
skill or skills of thinking critically. For example, Nickerson et
al. (1985: 49)
contend that:
recognizing the interdependence of thinking and knowledge
does not deny
the reality of the distinction. It is at least conceivable that
people possessing
the same knowledge might di� er signi® cantly in how
skillfully they apply
what they know.
We argue, however, that the distinction is itself untenable.
Skilled
performance at thinking tasks cannot be separated from
knowledge. The

kinds of acts, such as predicting and interpreting, which are put
forth as
generic skills will, in fact, vary greatly depending on the
context, and this
di� erence is connected with the di� erent kinds of knowledge
and under-
common misconceptions of critical thinking 271
standing necessary for successful completion of the particular
task. Inter-
preting a graph is a very di� erent sort of enterprise from
interpreting a
play. The former involves coming to an understanding of the
relationships
among the plotted entities based on understanding certain
geometric
conventions; the latter involves constructing a plausible
meaning for the
play based on textual evidence. Both of these di� er again from
the case of
interpreting someone’s motives, which involves imputing
certain beliefs or
attitudes to an individual based on reading verbal and bodily
cues as well as
on past knowledge of the person. Similarly, predicting how a
story will end
calls upon very di� erent understanding than does predicting
the weather. It
makes little sense, then, to think in terms of generic skills,
which are simply
applied or transferred to di� erent domains of knowledge.
Becoming pro® cient at critical thinking itself involves, among

other
things, the acquisition of certain sorts of knowledge. For
example, the
knowledge of certain critical concepts which enable one to
make distinc-
tions is central to critical thinking. Understanding the di�
erence between a
necessary and a su� cient condition is not just background
knowledge but is
very much a part of what is involved in thinking critically.
Similarly, pro® ciency in critical thinking involves an
understanding of
the various principles which govern good thinking in particular
areas, and
many of these are domain speci® c, as McPeck (1981) has
pointed out.
Barrow (1991: 12) makes the point in this way:
What is clear, what is contradictory, what is logical, and so
forth, depends
upon the particular context. . . . To be logical in discussion
about art is not a
matter of combining logical ability with information about art.
It is a matter
of understanding the logic of art, of being on the inside of
aesthetic concepts
and aesthetic theory. The capacity to be critical about art is
inextricably
intertwined with understanding aesthetic discourse.
Facione (1990: 10) sums up well this general point:
This domain-speci® c knowledge includes understanding
methodological
principles and competence to engage in norm-regulated

practices that are
at the core of reasonable judgements in those speci® c contexts.
. . . Too much
of value is lost if CT [critical thinking] is conceived of simply
as a list of
logical operations and domain-speci® c knowledge is conceived
of simply as
an aggregation of information.
An additional di� culty with the identi® cation of critical
thinking solely
with skills to the exclusion of knowledge and attitudes is that it
fails to
recognize the central role played by attitudes in thinking
critically. Critical
thinking involves more than the ability to engage in good
thinking. It also
involves the willingness or disposition to do so. Siegel (1988)
refers to this
aspect of critical thinking as the critical spirit and sees it as of
equal
importance to the reason-assessment component. Ennis (1987)
includes a
list of dispositions in his conception of critical thinking, and
dispositions,
and values and traits of character are central to Paul’ s (1982)
notion of a
s̀trong sense’ of critical thinking.
Skills as discrete
Another major di� culty with the equation of critical thinking

with skill is
that it assumes the existence of certain discrete processes,
procedures or
operations. It is assumed that acquiring a skill involves
becoming pro® cient
at these processes. Thus, Chuska (1986: 25) distinguishes
between the
`ways of thinking (the processes involved)’ and t̀hinking skills
(the pro® -
ciency a person demonstrates in using the processes)’. In some
cases these
processes are thought to involve certain mental processes or
operations, and
in others these processes are conceived of in terms of
procedures or steps.
The di� culties with both these conceptualizations are dealt
with below.
Cr i ti c a l th i n ki n g a s m e n ta l p r o c e s s e s
It is a common assumption in discourse about critical thinking
that being
good at critical thinking is basically a matter of being pro®
cient at certain
mental processes.4 These processes are generally thought to
include such
things as classifying, inferring, observing, evaluating,
synthesizing and
hypothesizing. Kirby and Kuykendall (1991: 7, 11), for
example, hold
that t̀hinking is a holistic process in which di� erent mental
operations
work in concert’ and allude to ìntellectual skills training’ . It is
our view
that a purely `processes’ conception of critical thinking is
logically mis-

leading and pedagogically mischievous.5
In medicine, talking about processes as outcomes makes some
sense. An
obstetrician may give a newborn infant an appropriately sound
smack to
start up certain vital processes. May we not suggest that
teachers should
seek to do something analogous? If we do, we are presumably
not suggest-
ing that they should seek the occurrence of physical processes
such as
synapse-® ring in the brain, but that they should seek the
occurrence of such
mental processes as analysing or translating. Should they not,
then, seek to
invoke mental processes?
Talk about mental processes has a logic very di� erent from the
logic of
talk about physical processes. Physical processes, such as
baking or
synapse-® ring, can, at least in principle, be observed and
identi® ed
independently of any product they may have. Mental processes
can be
identi® ed only via their products; observing them directly is a
logical
impossibility. For example, we suppose that a translating
`process’ has
occurred in some person only because the person has succeeded
in produ-
cing a translation.
Descriptions of translating and classifying `behaviours’ are not
descrip-

tions of behaviours at all, but descriptions of upshots or
accomplishments
such as converting poetry to prose. When someone succeeds in
such a
conversion there is no doubt that something must have gone on
ìn’ that
person which enabled him or her to succeed. To identify this
s̀omething’ as
a particular mental process is to assume that the same sort of
thing goes on
within a person in every case in which he or she translates
something.
There is no reason to suppose this is the case. The so-called
`processes’ are
hypothesized, and then rei® ed after the fact of these upshots.
Mental processes are di� erentiated from one another not by
observing
features of the processes, but by distinguishing among kinds of
upshots or
accomplishments. The number of di� erent kinds of processes
we identify
depends upon how we decide to di� erentiate upshots. For some
purposes
we may wish to lump them all together. For instance, we may
lump
together all of the upshots that represent successful application
of conven-
tional meaning rules and standards, and then we might talk of
t̀he process’
of translation that all have in common. We may, on the other
hand, want to

subdivide student successes on the basis of the di� erent kinds
of meaning
conventions they ful® l. In either case, we will be less inclined
to reify and
confound categories if we talk about enabling students to ful® l
the
conventions and standards rather than about their exercising
mysterious
processes presumed to lie behind such accomplishments. No
useful ped-
agogical aim is served by postulating such processes.
Regardless of the conceptual hazards, people interested in
critical
thinking, and in education in general, are prone to talk about
processesÐ
the thinking process, the reading process, the creative process.
What makes
this way of characterizing teaching and learning so attractive?
In part, the
attraction may arise from the ambiguity of the term `process’. In
part, it
may also occur because it seems to o� er a promising answer to
the question,
`Are critical thinking abilities transferable?’
Broadly speaking, a process may be any course of events that
has an
upshot or a result of some sort. However, there are at least three
distinct
ways that courses of events relate to their upshots. In the ® rst
instance, they
may relate as that course of events people now call `natural
selection’ relates
to its upshot, the evolution of a species. In the second, they may
relate as

running a race relates to ® nishing the race. In the third, they
may relate as
facing an object relates to noticing it. We may characterize
these, for the
sake of convenience, as: (1) process-product, (2) task-
achievement, and (3)
orient-reception relations. Process-product pairs are used to
pick out
situations in which a series of changes or a particular relation
produces
an identi® able upshot. Task-achievement pairs are used to talk
about what
people do to bring about upshots. Tasks di� er from other
`processes’ in that
tasks are things people do on purpose in an e� ort to succeed at
something.
There are doubtless thousands of task words in most natural
languages.
Words like l̀ook’, s̀earch’ , r̀ace’ and t̀each’ can all be used as
task words.
Their use in this way re¯ ects the fact that many things people
seek to
accomplish are di� cult to bring o� . They can try and fail.
Ambiguity in the term `process’ lends a spurious sort of
plausibility to
the processes conception of critical thinking because it makes it
plausible to
suppose that all upshots of human activity have the same
relation to the
activity as products of combustion have to the process of
combustion.
Because processes are routinely named after their products, it is
natural to
suppose that achievements and receptions must also have
corresponding

processes. The result, of course, is unwarranted rei® cationÐ
reading back
from outcomes to mysterious antecedent processes.
The process conception is also bolstered by the fact that the
same
happening may be spoken of as both a process and a task. When
one bakes a
loaf of bread the changes in the loaf may be seen either as a
natural function
of heating and of the chemistry of its constituents, or as what
the cook
doesÐ heating the oven to the proper temperature and so on.
The same
happenings are, thus, characterized di� erently. Baking, the
chemical pro-
cess, is a causal occurrence; baking, the task, is a procedure (or
an art)
intended to bring about the chemical process in proper degree,
so that the
result is not pasty, or charred, or leaden. Because such words as
`baking’
may be ambiguous, it is easy to neglect the di� erence between
the process
and the task.
Such reception verbs, as s̀ee’, `notice’ and r̀ealize’ refer to
upshots of a
special kind. First, they involve either (or both) our literal
perception
apparatuses (eyes, ears, etc.) or our mental abilities. Secondly,

although
there are tasks we can carry out to position ourselves to see
(e.g. sit where
we can watch the horizon) or prepare ourselves conceptually
(e.g. acquire
the concepts of truth and validity), these tasks cannot guarantee
that we will
have the desired upshot. As White (1967: 69) puts it:
We can ask someone how he [sic] `would’ discover or cure, but
not how he
`would’ notice, although it is as legitimate to ask how he `did’
notice as it is to
ask how he `did’ discover or cure. For the former `how’
question asks for the
method, but the latter for the opportunity. Although appropriate
schooling
and practice can put us in a condition to notice what we used to
miss, people
cannot be taught nor can they learn how to notice, as they can
be taught or
can learn how to detect. Noticing, unlike solving, is not the
exercise of a skill.
For those interested in teaching students to become better at
critical
thinking, the moral is clear. We cannot teach students the
process of
noticing fallacies, for we have no grounds for believing there is
such a
process. The most we can do is orient them, and this, it seems,
we do in at
least three ways.
� We teach the person certain conceptsÐ for instance, the
concept of

a valid argument. This enables them to notice fallacies they
would
otherwise have overlookedÐ but does not, of course, guarantee
they will notice them.
� We motivate the person to care that arguments are valid and
to be
on the lookout for invalid arguments.
� We teach procedures that enable the person to orient himself
or
herself where certain kinds of reception are sought.
The second reason why people become advocates of critical
thinking
processes is that they want schools to provide curricula such
that students
learn to do certain things across the curriculumÐ and into their
non-school
livesÐ abstract, analyse, classify, evaluate, sequence,
synthesize, translate,
etc. These `processes’ are believed to be common to all critical
thinking
situations and to a range of activities beyond. To educators this
means that
in teaching them they can economize on instruction because
there will be
transfer of training. Someone who learns the forehand smash in
tennis is
likely to learn the forehand smash in squash with less di� culty
than a
person novice to both. Are we then to suggest that someone who
learns, for
example, to abstract in the writing of a preÂ cis will be able,
because of that
prior learning, to abstract in depicting a house, or that one who

is able to
evaluate cars will thereby be able to evaluate hypotheses? What
else can we
make of talk of processes as general abilities? Critical thinking
situations
may well have common features, but speaking of processes is of
no value; it
is, indeed, either otiose or misleading, and we almost certainly
risk losing
more than we gain. We risk falling into a monochromatic and
wholly
misleading view of the teaching of critical thinking.
Cr i ti c a l th i n ki n g a s p r o c e d u r e s
Another common misconception of critical thinking sees it as
basically a
matter of following a general procedure, described usually in
terms of a set
of steps, stages or phases. We contend that developing students’
compe-
tence in thinking is not, at heart, dependent on teaching them
steps or
procedures to follow. We begin by clarifying what we believe is
implied by
those who characterize critical thinking as following step-by-
step pro-
cedures. Next, we compare this view with an account of
thinking as the
exercise of judgement.

Thinking as procedure
Although there is no consensus about the general procedures
that constitute
thinking, the three most frequently discussed are inquiry (i.e.
t̀he scienti® c
method’), problem solving, and decision making (Wright 1993).
Some
writers refer to critical thinking and creative thinking as
separate pro-
cedures (Marzano et al. 1988: 32, Overgaard 1989: 9). By some
accounts,
there are as many as eight general thinking procedures: concept
formation,
principle formation, comprehension, problem solving, decision
making,
research, composition, and oral discourse (Marzano et al. 1988:
32± 33).
Each of these is distinguished by the type of conclusion or
result produced
(e.g. clari® cation of a concept, a decision about what course of
action to
take). Proponents of thinking as procedure, by de® nition,
believe that
procedures are at the heart of promoting thinking.
An important variable in this view of thinking is the formality
of the
sequence of steps involved in these general procedures. There is
a range of
opinion on this matter, spanning what we will call the
algorithmic and the
heuristic views of thinking as procedure. According to
Nickerson et al.
(1985: 74), algorithms and heuristics are two types of
procedures: an

algorithm is a step-by-step prescription that is guaranteed to
accomplish
a particular goal; an heuristic is a procedure that is merely
reasonably likely
to yield a solution. Proponents of an algorithmic view of
thinking as
procedure hold that: (1) there is a manageable number of highly
reliable
procedures that, taken as a whole, can address the range of
situations that
students need to resolve, (2) the steps in these procedures form
a ® xed
order, and (3) mastery of these steps is the central challenge in
learning to
think. Supporters of the heuristic view hold a less stringent set
of assump-
tions: (1) there is a potentially large number of procedures
helpful across
the range of situations that students need to resolve, (2) the
order of the
steps in these is not ® xed, and (3) mastery of these steps is a
pre-eminent,
but not necessarily the only, challenge in learning to think.
Although it is di� cult to ® nd much support for the algorithmic
view of
critical thinking, many academics, particularly psychologists,
appear to
accept the heuristic view. Thus, after reviewing a representative
range of
programmes to promote thinking, Glaser (1984: 96) notes that

`most of
these programs place emphasis on the teaching of general
processes, general
heuristics and rules for reasoning and problem solving, that
might be
acquired as transferable habits of thinking’ . Marzano et al.
(1988: 34)
suggest that the procedures should not be taught as `prescribed
procedures’
but rather as r̀epertoires or arrays of alternatives’ that are s̀emi-
ordered’ or
are `working hypotheses about the best way to accomplish a
goal, general
procedures to be used ¯ exibly by teachers and adapted by
students’ . For
others, however, the sequence of steps to be followed is more
signi® cant
(e.g. Beach 1987: 146± 147).
It is intuitively appealing to describe critical thinking in terms
of how
an individual is to go about it. The procedure approach, by
reducing
critical thinking to steps, seeks to provide operational or task
descriptions
of the building blocks of such thinking. Consider the following
exampleÐ
the `Decide Model’ by E. Daniel Eckberg.6 This conception
holds or
assumes that critical thinking comprises a set of steps
characterized as
follows:
D. De® ne the dilemma
What’s the problem?
Why does it concern me?

What’s the basic issue?
E. Examine electives
What are all sorts of possible ways of solving the problem?
What choices do we have?
What are our alternative courses of action?
What hypothesis can we make?
C. Consider consequences
What happens if we try each choice?
If we do this, then what?
How will things change if I choose this one?
What data can I collect and consider in considering these con-
sequences?
I. Investigate importance
What principles are important to me here?
What things do I most value?
How will these values in¯ uence my choice?
What am I assuming to be true?
What are my preferences and biases?
D. Decide direction
In the light of the data, what’ s my choice?
Which choice should now be chosen?
Which hypothesis seems to be the best?
Based on the evidence, what course of action should I take?
E. Evaluate ends
How can I test my hypothesis?
Was my course of action correct?
What are the consequences of my choice?

Has a tentative hypothesis been proven or disproved?
What are my conclusions?
As one can see, the model attempts to characterize critical
thinking as a set
of procedures to be carried out. None of the steps directly raises
the
underlying normative questions. Even in asking, `Was my
course of action
correct?’, the schema refers to what has been completedÐ a re¯
ection back.
Thus, the fundamentally normative and ongoing nature of
critical thinking
is ignored or masked. Critical thinking is not simply a
retrospective
undertaking.
It might be suggested that a more appropriate description of the
`decide
direction’ step is `make an informed, fair-minded decision’ . We
agree, but
this no longer describes a procedure to be performed, rather it
identi® es
norms to be ful® lled. As such, it is not characteristic of the
procedure view.
Although some educators may use the term s̀tep’ to refer to
achievement of
standards, the focus is overwhelmingly on strategies and
heuristics. We do
not wish to quibble over conceptual territory; rather we draw
attention to
the dominant (possibly, paradigmatic) use of the term s̀tep’ so
as to expose
the inadequacies of this view of critical thinking as following
general
procedures.

Concerns with t̀hinking as general procedures’
Although we believe that heuristics serve a useful role in
learning to think
critically, we do not regard them as the central feature of good
thinking:
there are two basic reasons why the general procedures view is
an
inadequate way of conceiving of critical thinking. We believe it
misrepre-
sents the major obstacle to good thinking, and grossly
understates the
signi® cance of contextual factors in deciding how to proceed
in any
particular case of critical thinking
On the general procedures view, the performance of certain
tasks is seen
to be a highly reliable means of achieving the desired results of
thinking.
The educational challenge is, therefore, to equip students with
repertoires
of procedures they can employ across the range of thinking
situations. In
our view, the mere performance of certain procedures identi®
ed in
descriptive terms is insu� cient to ensure that what has
happened counts
as critical thinking.
The performance of tasks such as thinking of reasons for and
against a
position, or of brainstorming alternatives, does not guarantee
that an
individual is thinking critically. The pro and con reasons that

the individual
comes up with may address only the most trivial aspects of the
issue; so,
too, the brainstorming of alternatives may miss the most
sensible alter-
natives. Learning to engage in such activities has little
educational merit
unless these things are done in such a way as to ful® l relevant
standards of
adequacy. Students have, after all, performed these sorts of
tasks for
much of their lives. The educational goal must be to teach them
to
do such tasks well by increasing their capacity and inclination
to
make judgements by reference to criteria and standards that
distinguish
thoughtful evaluations from sloppy ones, fruitful classi® cation
schemes
from trivial ones, and so on. A general procedures approach that
does
not teach standards of good thinking is unlikely to sharpen
students’
critical judgement. It is for this reason we have suggested that
critical
thinking should be characterized not in terms of procedures to
be carried
out, but in terms of the standards a performance must ful® l to
count as
successful.

Critical thinking is a polymorphous or multi-form enterprise;
there
are numerous activities that may be helpful in solving a problem
or
reaching a decision. What steps are appropriate is determined
both by
the nature of the problem and its context. They are context-
bound. For
example, in deciding whether any particular government should
support international military intervention in `civil’ wars, it is
hard to
imagine how one set of steps, or any limited set of procedures,
could
be appropriate for all such circumstances. Nor could the same
sequence
of problem-solving steps usefully be applied both to ® xing a
failing
relationship and to ® xing a civil war. Identifying both these
situations
as `problems’ masks the very di� erent factors that need to be
considered
in deciding what should be done in each case.7 Given the
diversity
of problems and problem contexts, we believe that any account
of
the steps involved in problem solving or decision making will
either be
so vague as to be largely unhelpful, or they will be so speci® c
that they
will have little generalizability beyond a speci® c class of
problems or
decisions.
To a considerable extent, what we should do in solving a
problem is
determined by the standards that must be met for the solution in

the
particular case to be successful. In the case of a failing
relationship, it may
be lack of honesty with oneself that is the problem. In deciding
whether a
government should participate in an international intervention
may involve
honesty, but it often involves considering the e� ect on the
lives of many
innocentsÐ and very large economic e� ects. Following the
decision-making
model listed above may simply be an occasion to rationalize the
self-
deception that gave rise to the personal problem in the ® rst
placeÐ or the
international problem in the ® rst place. Nurturing open-
mindedness may
be the only s̀tep’ needed to repair this situation
We are not claiming that teaching about general procedures is a
com-
pletely inappropriate way to promote critical thinking. Rather,
we empha-
size that the e� ectiveness of any procedure depends on its e�
cacy in
helping students meet the relevant standards for good thinking:
there are
no inherent or highly reliable connections between learning to
think well
and performing particular operations. Put another way, what
drives
increased competence in thinking is greater mastery of the
standards for
judging an appropriate tack to take in a particular context, not
learning pre-
programmed, supposedly generalizable, procedures.

Cr i ti c a l th i n ki n g a n d th e p e d a g o g y o f p r a c ti c e
We have reviewed three conceptions of critical thinking: skills,
processes,
and procedures. All three have been used to promote the idea
that
competence in thinking critically is gained primarily through
practice.
Thus, although we will focus in this section on the skills-
conception as a
source of the pedagogy of practice, we could just as well focus
on either the
process or the procedures view. Nickerson et al. (1985) discuss
learning
thinking skills as analogous to two ways of learning physical
skillsÐ one
when a person practises a particular skill to strengthen it; the
other where,
by appropriately directing intellectual energy, teachers replace
the novice’ s
ine� cient movements with more e� cient ones. Practice is seen
as exercis-
ing the skills of critical thinking so that improvement will take
place.
Students may, for example, be given frequent opportunities to
make
comparisons in a variety of domains so that the s̀kill of
comparing’ will
be exercised, and this aspect of critical thinking improved. We
contend,
however, that critical thinking is not promoted simply through

the repeti-
tion of s̀kills’ of thinking, but rather by developing the relevant
knowledge,
commitments and strategies and, above all, by coming to
understand what
criteria and standards are relevant. Repetition does indeed have
some role
to play, but only if it takes place in the context of the
development of such
knowledge, criteria, commitments and strategies.
The main assumption underpinning the practice view is that
critical
thinking consists of a variety of discrete skills that can be
improved through
repetition. On this view critical thinking skills are analogous to
skills in an
athletic endeavour such as soccer, where it is possible to
practise kicking,
heading the ball, passing, etc., and to develop skill at each of
these
constituent activities independently of ever playing a football
game. One
repeats the skill until it has become routinized and one no
longer needs to
apply conscious attention to its execution.
However, this is not an appropriate model for what is involved
in
becoming better at critical thinking. Unlike athletic skill, skill
in critical
thinking cannot be separated from understanding the nature and
purpose of
the task one is attempting to accomplish.8 Becoming better at
comparing,
for example, involves learning to make comparisons according

to relevant
criteria, making comparisons which are appropriate to the
particular
circumstances, comparing with a view to the reason the
comparison is
being made, and so on.
We argued earlier that critical thinking cannot be characterized
in terms
of speci® c mental processes, and that there are no good
grounds for
supposing that terms like comparing, classifying and inferring
denote
generic mental processes which one can improve through
repetition.
Here, we emphasize that all aspects of critical thinking centrally
involve
judgement, and judgement cannot be made routine. Scheƒ er
(1965: 103)
makes this point with reference to chess:
critical skills call for strategic judgement and cannot be
rendered automatic.
To construe the learning of chess as a matter of drill would thus
be quite
wrong-headed in suggesting that the same game be played over
and over
again, or intimating that going through the motions of playing
repeatedly
somehow improves one’s game. What is rather supposed, at
least in the case

of chess, is that improvement comes about through development
of strategic
judgement, which requires that such judgement be allowed
opportunity to
guide choices in a wide variety of games, with maximal
opportunity for
evaluating relevant outcomes and re¯ ecting upon alternative
principles and
strategy in the light of such evaluation.
An examination of those areas where practice is helpfulÐ for
example
artistic performanceÐ makes evident that useful practice
involves far more
than mere repetition. Practising the piano is not simply a matter
of
continually repeating a piece in the same manner, but rather of
being
alert to and attempting to correct errors and continually striving
for
improvement according to the standards of quality performance.
Dewey
(1964: 201) makes the point that simply sawing a bow across
violin strings
will not make a violinist.
It is a certain quality of practice, not mere practice, which
produces the
expert and the artist. Unless the practice is based upon rational
principles,
upon insights into facts and their meaning, èxperience’ simply
® xes incorrect
acts into wrong habits.
Howard (1982: 161, 162) also maintains that practice is not
mere repetition,

but claims that it is, rather, repetition which is g̀ uided by
speci® c aims
such as solving various kinds of problems’ or ìmproving
acquired skills’ ,
and ìn accord with some . . . criteria of performance’ which
enable one to
judge the level of mastery of the activity. Thus, he states:
Rather than mechanically duplicating a passage, one strives for
particular
goals, say, of ¯ uency, contrast, or balance. Successive repeats
re¯ ect a drive
toward such goals rather than passive absorption of a sequence
of motor acts.
The question arises at this point as to how critical thinking can
best be
developed and what role practice plays in this development. We
have
argued that what characterizes thinking which is critical is the
quality of the
reasoning. Thus, in order to become a (more) critical thinker
one must
understand what constitutes quality reasoning, and have the
commitments
relevant to employing and seeking quality reasoning. The
knowledge
necessary for such understanding includes background
knowledge relevant
to the context in question, knowledge of the principles and
standards of
argumentation and inquiry, both in general and in specialized
areas,
knowledge of critical concepts, and knowledge of relevant
strategies and
heuristics. The kinds of habits of mind, commitments or

sensitivities
necessary for being a critical thinker include such things as
open-mind-
edness, fair-mindedness, the desire for truth, an inquiring
attitude and a
respect for high-quality products and performances. Thus,
fostering criti-
cal thinking would involve the development of such knowledge
and
commitments.
A variety of means may be employed to promote such
development,
including direct instruction, teacher modelling, creation of an
educational
environment where critical inquiry is valued and nurtured, and
provision
for students of frequent opportunities to think critically about
meaningful
challenges with appropriate feedback. Practice may also have a
role to play,
but it must be understood that it is not practice in the sense of a
simple
repetition of a skill, process or procedure. Rather such practice
presupposes
the kind of knowledge outlined above, and involves the
development of
critical judgement through applying this knowledge in a variety
of contexts.
It also involves attempts on the part of the learner to improve
according to

speci® c criteria of performance, and frequent feedback and
evaluation with
respect to the quality of thinking demonstrated.
N o te s
1. See, for example, Presseisen (1986).
2. Some examples are Worsham and Stockton (1986) and Beyer
(1991).
3. One fairly recent example of the use of this tripartite division
of goals is to be found in
British Columbia Ministry of Education (1991a, b).
4. It is, of course, a category mistake to talk about `doing’
processes; processes happen;
people do not do them.
5. One which comes close to this is found in a document
produced by a Canadian Ministry
of Education (British Columbia Ministry of Education 1991b:
15) which refers to
t̀hirteen thinking operations: observation, comparing,
classifying, making hypotheses,
imagining . . . ’ .
6. The `Decide Model’ is used in an introductory text on
economic reasoning (described in
Mackey 1977: 410).
7. According to Mackey (1977: 408) problem solving is t̀he
application of an organized
method of reasoning to a di� cult, perplexing or bewildering
situation’.
8. This is not to deny that many activities, such as football,

deeply involveÐ in addition to
skillsÐ critical thinking.
R e fe r e n c e s
BARROW, R. (1991) The generic fallacy. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 23 (1), 7± 17.
BEACH, R. (1987) Strategic teaching in literature. In B. F.
Jones, A. S. Palincsar, D. S. Ogle
and E. G. Carr (eds), S trategic Teaching and L earning:
Cognitive Instruction in the
Content Areas (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum
Development), 135± 159.
BEYER, B. K. (1987) Practical S trategies for the Teaching of
Thinking (Boston: Allyn &
Bacon).
BEYER, B. K. (1991) Teaching Thinking Skills: A Handbook
for Elementary S chool Teachers
(Boston: Allyn & Bacon).
BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1991a)
Thinking in the Classroom (Resources for
Teachers), V olume One: The Context for Thoughtful L earning
(Victoria, BC:
Assessment, Examinations, and Reporting Branch, Ministry of
Education and
Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights).
BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1991b)
Thinking in the Classroom (Resources
for Teachers), V olume Two: Experiences that Enhance
Thoughtful L earning (Victoria,

BC: Assessment, Examinations, and Reporting Branch, Ministry
of Education and
Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights).
CHUSKA, K. R. (1986) Teaching the Process of Thinking, K-
12, Fastback 244 (Bloomington,
IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation).
DEWEY, J. (1964) What psychology can do for the teacher. In
R. D. Archambault (ed.), John
Dewey on Education: Selected Writings (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press), 195±
211.
ENNIS, R. H. (1987) A taxonomy of critical thinking
dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron
and R. J. Sternberg (eds), Teaching Thinking S kills: Theory
and Practice (New York:
Freeman), 9± 26.
FACIONE, P. A. (1990) Critical thinking: A statement of expert
consensus for purposes of
educational assessment and instruction: Research ® ndings and
recommendations (The
Delphi Report). Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College
Philosophy of the
American Philosophical Association. ERIC ED 315 423.
GLASER, R. (1984) Education and thinking: the role of
knowledge. American Psychologist, 39
(2), 93± 104.

HOWARD, V. A. (1982) Artistry: The Work of Artists
(Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).
KIRBY, D. and KUYKENDALL, C., 1991, Mind Matters:
Teaching for Thinking (Portsmouth,
NH: Boynton/Cook).
MACKEY, J. (1977) Three problem-solving models for the
elementary classroom. S ocial
Education, 41 (5), 408± 410.
MARZANO, R. J., BRANDT, R. S., HUGHES, C. S., JONES, B.
F., PRESSEISEN, B. Z., RANKIN,
C. S. and SUHOR, C. (1988) Dimensions of Thinking: A
Framework for Curriculum and
Instruction (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum
Development).
MCPECK, J. E. (1981) Critical Thinking and Education
(Oxford: Martin Robertson).
NICKERSON, R. S., PERKINS, D. N. and SMITH, E. E., 1985,
The Teaching of Thinking
(Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
OVERGAARD, V. (1989) Focus on thinking: Towards
developing a common understanding. In
R. W. Marx (ed.), Curriculum: Towards Developing a Common
Understanding: A
Report to the British Columbia Ministry of Education
(Vancouver, BC: Vancouver
School District), 5± 34.
PAUL, R. W. (1982) Teaching critical thinking in the strong
sense: a focus on self-deception,

world views, and dialectical mode of analysis. Informal L ogic,
4 (2), 2± 7.
PAUL, R. W. (1984) Critical thinking: fundamental to education
for a free society. Educational
L eadership, 42 (1), 4± 14.
PRESSEISEN, B. Z. (1986) Critical Thinking and Thinking
Skills: S tate-of-the-Art De® nitions
and Practice in Public S chools (Philadelphia: Research for
Better Schools).
SCHEFFLER, I. (1965) Conditions of Knowledge: An
Introduction to Epistemology and
Education (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman).
SIEGEL, H. (1988) Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical
Thinking, and Education (New
York: Routledge).
WHITE, A. R. (1967) T he Philosophy of Mind (New York:
Random House).
WORSHAM, A. M. and STOCKTON, A. J. (1986) A Model for
Teaching Thinking Skills: The
Inclusion Process, Fastback 236 (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta
Kappa).
WRIGHT, I. (1993) Inquiry, problem-solving, and decision
making in elementary social studies
methods textbooks. Journal of S ocial Studies Research, 16± 17
(1), 26± 32.

Running Head: MARKETING BLUEPRINT FOR COCA COLA
MARKETING BLUEPRINT FOR COCA- COLA
Marketing Blueprint for Coca Cola
ShaRon Jones
South University
Professor: Matula
Analyze the key elements of buying products through customer
service or direct services from the Coca Cola Company
Customer service can be described as the assistance as well as
the pieces of advice in which a business organization offers to
those individuals who buy or use the products produced by that
organization. With reference to the Coca Cola Company, there
are various key elements or aspects which one focuses on when
buying the products of this company using customer service or
the direct service approach (Jochen, 2011).
One key aspect as to why buying products through customer
service is critical is due to the fact that Coca Cola is currently
involving itself in differentiation of consumers for its products.
Coca Cola products are consumed all over the world. However,
it is estimated that probably less than twenty countries in the
world do not consume Coca Cola products. This still leaves a
huge market share in which Coca Cola enjoys. As a result of the
great market share, Coca Cola is therefore coming up with
products which will create a deeper consumer desire in
comparison to a brand that may have existed a day before. This
is a factor that gives the consumers a reason to continuously
buy Coca Cola products rather than other products from
competing firms. This is a key aspect as it ensures that Coca
Cola consumers have the up to date information concerning the
tastes and preferences of the products offered by this company.
Another key element associated with buying products through
customer service or the direct services approach is the fact that
it focuses upon the consumer. Each and every business has that
mandate to become successful especially if they are not

successful in their current times. Customer service focuses on
the consumer. This critical tool of consumer feedback attempts
to understand the needs and wants of the consumer. For the
organization to maintain or increase their consumer base, it
must be able to meet the needs and requirements of their loyal
fan base. Customer service plays an important role in ensuring
the company succeeds in terms of the products it sells to its
great market share.
Buying products using the direct or customer services ensures
one is up to date concerning various promotions in which Coca
Cola gives to its customers. Promotions and great discounts are
some of the techniques in which businesses will use in order to
attract a larger market share. The direct service approach
ensures customers are conversant with such promotions as well
as other great deals and discounts.
Create a blueprint (diagram) for Coca Cola detailing the service
delivery process involving the frontline employee–customer
contacts before, during, and after the purchase
Select possible contact point failures where you would create
improvements in the form of new or improved services
Employee-customer contact is essential for any business. One
major aspect that has been linked to this relationship is the fact
that employees need to know and understand what the customers
need. Once they are able to understand this, it is very obvious
that the business organization will be successful as they are
producing products based on the consumers’ tastes and
preferences. Employee customer relations remain a very
important part of customer retention especially when coming up
with critical decisions concerning various production processes
used by a company (Benson, 2004).

From the blueprint diagram presented above, there are various
contact failures that can be seen with respect to employee
customer relationship. One contact failure that is missing from
the blueprint is the customer feedback system which is a key
factor to the employees as well as the entire business
organization as a whole. A feedback system plays various roles
within an organization. One of its valuable uses is to engage
and initiate meaningful conversations based on comments,
questions and concerns of product availability and ways the
company can improve on the product currently being offered.
In cases where the products may have scored poorly in terms of
poor or of low quality, a feedback system can provide
employees with honest criticism in the weakest areas for
improvement or product revamp campaigns in the future. Other
than addressing product improvement issues, a feedback system
can also be advantageous to the employees as it acts as a chief
way of motivation for employees on all company levels through
positive and negative consumer feedback. The diagram also
needs to include factors for the enhancement of customer
employee relationships.
Corporate Social Responsibility is another employee customer
contact that should be established. It is important to note that
the company uses resources from the environment. In addition
to this, they also release a lot of waste products into the
environment. The same environment is also used by people or
communities who live around this company. To ensure there is
sustainability and the people are less affected by various
chemicals emitted from these manufacturing plants, it is
necessary for corporate social responsibility to be put into
place.
It is important that the company is held accountable to the
people who live around the surrounding areas where products
are created. Corporate Social Responsibility will also be
brought into a deeper focus especially in the field of waste
management and how the organization deals with getting rid of

its waste after product completion.
Identify and analyze at least two areas for improvement or
creation of new services
One major area should be created within this company is the
feedback system. The system should be created and be included
as an after service operation. It should be c computerized and
consumer friendly with accessibility to all with some type of
reward system in place for ideas and thoughts that enhance a
product or save the company money in the restructuring process
despite the geographical location of the consumer (Terry 2005).
The second chief area of improvement should be within the
management of the company. The focus should not only be on
the welfare of the company through profit gains and margins but
a focus should always be the company’s responsibility to the
environment and the people living around this company. One of
the various management functions within the company is the
controlling, directing and the positive leadership throughout the
entire organization.
How will consumers benefit by improving these areas or
creating new services?
The improvements stated above are both beneficial to
consumers and the company at large. Consumers will however
benefit greatly from these improvements. Creating the new
services will improve the consumers’ participation on the
products in which the company is designing. Consumer demand
usually dictates the amount of production the company puts out
on the open market. Consumers are likely to enjoy high quality
goods at prices within their means. Giving consumers such a
forum is very important as they can brainstorm critical ideas
that will be used in improving the goods produced.
Consumers need to feel that their satisfaction is an
organization’s number one priority. This feeling of self
actualization creates a broader and loyal consumer fan base
which is vital to a successful to dominant market share of
consumer dollars. Enhancement of community and corporate
relationships will improve the business at large in achieving

environmental sustainability. The standard of living for those
who live near the manufacturing plants may even improve due
to the fact they are working towards having a sustainable
environment through corporate social responsibility (Feldberg,
2012).
Write a statement positioning the brand around the new or
improved services
The new and improved services go hand in hand with the brand
of this company. Coca Cola is continuously developing brand
strategies that are good for the consumer, the environment and
the organization. Once the quality issues have been addressed, it
will be reflected by an increase in consumer sales and demand.
This will in turn result in consumer satisfaction which is pillar
to the success of many business organizations. Coca Cola has
various brands which come in different types of containers that
aid in the recycling process while the Coca Cola brand still
remains a household name.
References
Benson, D. (2004). Coca kick in drinks spurs export fears.The
Washington Times (The Washington Times, LLC). Maywood,
New Jersey.
Terry, S. (2005). A Rich Deliciously Satisfying Collection of
Breakfast Recipes, My Best Book Publishing Company,
Feldberg, M. (2012). Beyond Seltzer Water: The Kashering of
Coca-Cola. Jewishfederations.org. The Jewish Federations of
North America.
Jochen W. (2011), Services Marketing – People, Technology,
Strategy. pg 14, 7th ed., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall
Raw Materials, Energy and water

Quality products and services
Waste (materials/energy/water)
Profit/ Net Income
Revenue/ market share
Satisfied customers
Vision, Goals, Strategies and Systems
Engaged Employees
Running Head: COLLECTING CONSUMER DATA
1

Collecting Consumer Data
2
Collecting Consumer Data
ShaRon Jones
South University
MBA6011 Strategic Marketing
24 September 2015
Professor: Matula
Uses of the CRM Technology Elements
Customer Service Relationship Management is used by firms to
describe the processes that have been implemented by a firm to
manage the interactions between its departments, customers and
prospects (Catalan, 2012). Elements of a customer service
relationship management include people. It is important to
identify and engage all the stakeholders of the organization.
This process is another element of CRM and Coca Cola should
consider their processes and evaluate them. The process should
be captured, analyzed and documented. The third element is
technology. Technology is important as CRM is an IT
investment.
An organization should choose the technology that suits its
goals and budget. The elements of a CRM technology include
PC-based software, software that resides on a network and web-
based applications. CRM can be used by the Coca Cola
Company or any conglomerate to improve on customer
retention. This can be done by understanding the loyal consumer
base the organization already has. CRM enables a firm to gather

information about the products and services that the consumer
frequently purchases, and even some that the consumer has not
particularly shown a preference to. The firm will then use this
information to fine tune their products and services to the
consumer’s needs and satisfaction, therefore building retention
and thus retain and creating a steady stream of ongoing revenue.
A Customer Database Template
Last Name
First Name
Address 1
City
Email
Our Privacy Policy:
The information filled above is private and confidential and is
not to be used by unauthorized personnel.
A Customer Satisfaction Survey
1. What is your name?
2. Do you use coca cola beverages?
3. How long have used our coca cola beverages?
4. If yes, what is your preferred coca cola drink?
5. Why do you prefer it to others?
6. If no, why don’t you use our coca cola beverages?
7. What drink don’t you like?
8. Why don’t you like it?

9. What improvements would you suggest we make?
10. How would you rate us?
Methods of Data Collection
Coca cola being a global supplier will need to collect
information from several countries. A team of researchers will
be required to collect this information from the consumers
through open and closed questionnaires that can be filled online
or physically and interviews from brand representatives.
References
Thomsen, S., & Conyon, M. (2012). Corporate governance:
Mechanisms and systems. London: McGraw-Hill.
Daniel Catalan Matamoros. (2012). An overview to customer
service relationship management. The University of Almeria:
Spain
Developing a Marketing Strategy for Coca Cola
Introduction
This paper is about developing a marketing strategy. For this
purpose, the Coca Cola Company has been selected. In this
paper, discussions have been made regarding the brief
introduction of Coca Cola Company, its SWOT analysis, and the
new mission statement of the company.
The Coca Cola Company
The Coca Cola Company is a multinational American beverage
corporation and manufacturer and marketer. Its headquarters is
in Atlanta Georgia. The company’s mission is ‘To create value
for our share owners on a long-term basis by building a business
that enhances The Coca-Cola Company’s trademarks. This is

also our ultimate commitment. As the world’s largest beverage
company, we refresh that world (The coca cola, 2014). We do
this by developing superior soft drinks, both carbonated and
non-carbonated, and profitable non-alcoholic beverage systems
that create value for our Company, our bottling partners and our
consumers.”
Their mission serves as a weighing scale for their values, plans
and actions. These implementations enable the company to
establish itself in markets that it helped to develop by being
able to gradually acquire higher profits. The company vision is
“to become the undisputed leader in every market we compete”.
They use the vision as a framework for which decisions are
made strategically (the Coca Cola Company, 2012)
SWOT Analysis
Strengths:
High brand popularity- in 2011, the company was awarded from
Interbrand for the highest brand equity (Foy et al, 2012). The
brand is appreciated worldwide with consumers of all ages. This
strength enables the company to enjoy economies of scale in the
global market.
Robust distribution network- the Coca Cola Company avails its
products to more than two hundred countries. It is able to use
the company owned and controlled distribution network
adequately. This enables the company to manage their costs,
introduce new brands and acquire more market niches.
Weaknesses:
Water-Management. Water is the main ingredient for the

company’s products. However, this resource is limited in many
parts of the world. Over exploitation and the increased costs of
living could potentially make the water situation worse.
Therefore, Coca Cola will be forced to incur higher costs and
this will adversely affect their profitability.
Foreign Currency Fluctuation- the company does not only use
the US Dollar but also pays expenses earns revenue using other
currencies such as euro, Mexican peso, Japanese Yen among
others. However, at the end of the day they have to present their
financial statements in American dollars. There has to be a
conversion of currencies in US Dollars at the current market
exchange rates at the end of every fiscal year. Fluctuations in
the value of the dollar against other major currencies affect the
company’s operating revenues, expenses and the balance sheet
values.
Opportunities:
Extend Reach- the Coca Cola Company is concentrating on
bolstering their products since the consumers they serve are
shifting towards a healthier lifestyle. The company is producing
bottled water for the countries that have major water shortages.
China and India have increased their demand for the latest
juices and coffee manufactured by the company.
Diversification- the company building a presence in rapidly
growing beverage companies. It now owns 16% of Keurig Green
Mountain. It is coming up with Keurig Kold Device that is
intended to debut soon. In addition, the Coca Cola Ccompany
purchased a 17% stake of the Monster drink (Foy et al, 2012).
These ventures enable the Coca Cola Company to get in touch
with a younger consumer bases.

Threats:
Changes in consumer preferences- there has been a cultural shift
towards natural and organic products. The consumers now
prefer nutritional water, smoothes and other healthy drinks. The
federal regulators are placing excess taxes on these beverages
and the health professionals keep discouraging the intake of
these beverages.
Indirect competition- companies like Starbucks and DNKN do
not pose as direct competitors; however, they provide services
that the Coca Cola Company does not provide. They offer
healthier drinks and customer loyalty rewards to their
customers. This poses as a huge threat to the Coca Cola
Company and others in the soft drink industry.
New Mission Statement
‘To introduce the world to our new and improved beverages that
are healthier and help preserve the natural resources of this
earth. We achieve this by manufacturing soft drinks and other
hydrating beverages that create value for our company,
increased profits for our shareholders while maintaining a
cooperative relationship with environmental protectors.’
References
Senker, Cath & Foy. (2012). Coca Cola. London: Wayland
Thomsen, S., & Conyon, M. (2012). Corporate governance:
Mechanisms and systems. London: McGraw-Hill.
Jesse. G. (2014). Management Styles & Leadership practices at
Coca-Cola. Kabarak

Mazzarella, J. (1979). Leadership effectiveness. Burlingame:
Association of California School Administrators.
The Coca-Cola Company: (2014). Mission, Vision & Values.
Retrieved

STAKEHOLDERS AND NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR COCA - COLAStak.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to STAKEHOLDERS AND NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR COCA - COLAStak.docx

Similar to STAKEHOLDERS AND NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR COCA - COLAStak.docx (14)

More from dessiechisomjj4

More from dessiechisomjj4 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

STAKEHOLDERS AND NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR COCA - COLAStak.docx