-
[email protected]
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 934
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
- Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
- Thanked: 63 times
- Followed by:14 members
Topic: 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 a single location. Such centralisation would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."
Para 1: The above argument has been a serious question for many businesses today, whether to centralise the operations of workforce or to have diverse offices or branches. Like every decision, even this decision has its own pros and quons, the only difference being to know the circumstances well enough to take a specific decision. I disagree to the author's argument to centralise the operations, just because it helped in the past.
Para 2: The premise to the above argument is that Apogee Ltd. was more profitable due to a specific strategy (centralisation) in the past. This does not mean that the same thing will work in future as well. The author does not consider other parameters such as industry scenario, economic conditions, and current position of the company itself. So just because a particular strategy worked out in the past, does not mean that it is going to work out in the future as well.
Para 3: The foremost assumption in the above argument is that the centralisation of the workers will not affect the sales of the business. When a business centralises its workers and closes down offices, the first impact is on the customer service and sales of the business. Nothing is mentioned about this aspect. Eg: My current company Angel Broking cut down its employees by half, but the management is now facing a problem of how to provide effective services to its customers all over.
Para 4: If the author would had given additional information of the current circumstances of the company or the industry or economic conditions, then the argument would have made sense. There could also be a possibility that while Apogee ltd, is busy cutting down costs and the industry competitors and other companies are expanding their businesses and Apogee Ltd. lost on its sales as profits can also be earned by expansion than only cutting costs (going one step backwards).
Para 5: Overall, the argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render the author's conclusion invalid. Hence more premises are required to prove the argument to be correct.
"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 a single location. Such centralisation would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."
Para 1: The above argument has been a serious question for many businesses today, whether to centralise the operations of workforce or to have diverse offices or branches. Like every decision, even this decision has its own pros and quons, the only difference being to know the circumstances well enough to take a specific decision. I disagree to the author's argument to centralise the operations, just because it helped in the past.
Para 2: The premise to the above argument is that Apogee Ltd. was more profitable due to a specific strategy (centralisation) in the past. This does not mean that the same thing will work in future as well. The author does not consider other parameters such as industry scenario, economic conditions, and current position of the company itself. So just because a particular strategy worked out in the past, does not mean that it is going to work out in the future as well.
Para 3: The foremost assumption in the above argument is that the centralisation of the workers will not affect the sales of the business. When a business centralises its workers and closes down offices, the first impact is on the customer service and sales of the business. Nothing is mentioned about this aspect. Eg: My current company Angel Broking cut down its employees by half, but the management is now facing a problem of how to provide effective services to its customers all over.
Para 4: If the author would had given additional information of the current circumstances of the company or the industry or economic conditions, then the argument would have made sense. There could also be a possibility that while Apogee ltd, is busy cutting down costs and the industry competitors and other companies are expanding their businesses and Apogee Ltd. lost on its sales as profits can also be earned by expansion than only cutting costs (going one step backwards).
Para 5: Overall, the argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render the author's conclusion invalid. Hence more premises are required to prove the argument to be correct.
