MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Kimberly‐Clark Uses Real Options

2006· article· en· W1979140064 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of applied corporate finance · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscounted cash flowCash flowSenior managementProcess (computing)RigourBusinessEconomicsFinanceActuarial scienceMarketingComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past five years, Kimberly‐Clark (K‐C) has faced a familiar management challenge: How can senior managers bring the rigor and discipline used to make daily operating decisions to the uncertain and risky world of innovation? The challenge was particularly acute at K‐C because the company is well known for its reliance on Return On Invested Capital (ROIC) and Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), both measures that are widely believed to lead to undervaluation of projects with risky upside potential. This article discusses how and why K‐C adopted and now uses the real options approach to project evaluation and management. The authors also share some lessons learned during the adoption process, including how the company adapted the real options framework to its own circumstances and requirements. The K‐C experience shows that successful adoption rests on a number of factors that have less to do with the rigor or precision of quantitative models than with matters of corporate process and organizational design.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it