-
Rajesh Nair
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:57 am
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
"When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."
Discuss how well reasoned .....etc
The memorandum submitted by certain business Department of Apogee Company to centralize its operation based on the evidence provided is neither compelling nor valid.. While it may be true that company had achieved more profit at one point of time, the reasons sited for the profit is fragmentary hence insufficient to recommend centralization.
First of all the memorandum states that when the company had its operations in one location it was more profitable. The argument simply assumes centralization as the cause for profitability while the market situation prevailed at that point of time, like demand for their product or lack of competition, could have been the real reason.
Second flaw is the assumption that closing down the field office will help to improve the profitability. Field office would actually add proximity to more customers which in turn will help in better understanding of socio economic standard of specific regions. Having field office also help to improve the speed at which products are delivered while maintaining sufficient data about the demand for the products in that particular region. Filed offices also help to reduce the delivery time in addition to cutting down on the cost of transportation .
Third and the biggest flaw is the assumption that centralization would cut cost and help for better supervision. While the company may cut down the infrastructure cost, incurring losses for transportation charges will be higher. More and more companies are adopting micromanagement model to increase the efficiency and the suggestion to centralize the supervision will definitely lead to failure since it is difficult to manage more employees.
To sum it up , the memorandum is neither persuasive nor convincing. Had it taken the aforementioned factors into consideration, it would have not only rendered the argument indisputable but also would have made the argument persuasive and valid.
"When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."
Discuss how well reasoned .....etc
The memorandum submitted by certain business Department of Apogee Company to centralize its operation based on the evidence provided is neither compelling nor valid.. While it may be true that company had achieved more profit at one point of time, the reasons sited for the profit is fragmentary hence insufficient to recommend centralization.
First of all the memorandum states that when the company had its operations in one location it was more profitable. The argument simply assumes centralization as the cause for profitability while the market situation prevailed at that point of time, like demand for their product or lack of competition, could have been the real reason.
Second flaw is the assumption that closing down the field office will help to improve the profitability. Field office would actually add proximity to more customers which in turn will help in better understanding of socio economic standard of specific regions. Having field office also help to improve the speed at which products are delivered while maintaining sufficient data about the demand for the products in that particular region. Filed offices also help to reduce the delivery time in addition to cutting down on the cost of transportation .
Third and the biggest flaw is the assumption that centralization would cut cost and help for better supervision. While the company may cut down the infrastructure cost, incurring losses for transportation charges will be higher. More and more companies are adopting micromanagement model to increase the efficiency and the suggestion to centralize the supervision will definitely lead to failure since it is difficult to manage more employees.
To sum it up , the memorandum is neither persuasive nor convincing. Had it taken the aforementioned factors into consideration, it would have not only rendered the argument indisputable but also would have made the argument persuasive and valid.
