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 centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."
[size=x-large] Total 501 words.
The author of this memorandum suggested that Apogee could profit by simply centralization. However, the logical structure of his assertion is so vulnerable that it contains plenty of logic flaws that make the conclusion untenable.
The past success doesn't indicate the same in the future. With the world changing everyday, companies should keep progressing in order to avoiding trailing behind. The author argued that Apogee was more successful when it had all its operations in one location as this seems the only reason that cranked up the company's profit. When we analyze a company's success, we need to consider substantial elements so that the conclusion could tend to be more justified. The success may consist the achievement in the management, innovationary progess in the products, high morale among its legions, etc. The author failed to demonstrate the other essentials before he drew up his conclusion.
Secondly, the way-of-doing in his suggestion seems rash. The author is likely to deal with machines, not human-beings. The differences between a part in the machine and a post in the company not only concentrate on the sentimental thinking of any individual but also emerge in the environment in which the employees live. One can not simply order an well-thought human-being to give up all the surroundings that he already get used to and move into a completely new place with all the circumstances to be updated. They may function like a part of the machine in Apogee, but they are just simply not. Also, gathering people means additional fund support-flexible allowance, residence-compensation, and family supplements. But the more risky part of this plan is whether the company could adopt a suitable, updated management organization structure. The complexity of this movement is not simply scaling the scope up, but an exponentially soaring in difficulty.
Also, the author failed to mention any further justification on a more critical issue: cutting cost and more supervision lead to a buoyant in profit. With no indication on how APOGEE would manage this major change in the company's structure, we cannot simply assert that the profit could be cranked up. Cutting cost doesn't equal to sheer branch shutting down. It also comprises at least two essentials: efficiency in management and morale among employees, which we already argued in the preceding paragraphs and proved the uncertainty of them. More importantly, the author mentioned a method that is so dangerous that even the most experienced veteran could be extremely cautious while they are applying it-"more" supervision. No doubt that a successful, perhaps 30-years-in-field CEO could cope with it as if it is invisible. But the author seems to be overwhelmingly confident that APOGEE will achieve this manifest success in management within an arm's range. This argument is no doubt untenable and less convincing without no further confirmation on the company's maturity in management.
This argument is neither sound nor persuasive. The author failed to give any convincing reasons that Apogee will become more profitable by shutting down its branches and centralizing all its divisions.[/size[/size]]
"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 centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."
[size=x-large] Total 501 words.
The author of this memorandum suggested that Apogee could profit by simply centralization. However, the logical structure of his assertion is so vulnerable that it contains plenty of logic flaws that make the conclusion untenable.
The past success doesn't indicate the same in the future. With the world changing everyday, companies should keep progressing in order to avoiding trailing behind. The author argued that Apogee was more successful when it had all its operations in one location as this seems the only reason that cranked up the company's profit. When we analyze a company's success, we need to consider substantial elements so that the conclusion could tend to be more justified. The success may consist the achievement in the management, innovationary progess in the products, high morale among its legions, etc. The author failed to demonstrate the other essentials before he drew up his conclusion.
Secondly, the way-of-doing in his suggestion seems rash. The author is likely to deal with machines, not human-beings. The differences between a part in the machine and a post in the company not only concentrate on the sentimental thinking of any individual but also emerge in the environment in which the employees live. One can not simply order an well-thought human-being to give up all the surroundings that he already get used to and move into a completely new place with all the circumstances to be updated. They may function like a part of the machine in Apogee, but they are just simply not. Also, gathering people means additional fund support-flexible allowance, residence-compensation, and family supplements. But the more risky part of this plan is whether the company could adopt a suitable, updated management organization structure. The complexity of this movement is not simply scaling the scope up, but an exponentially soaring in difficulty.
Also, the author failed to mention any further justification on a more critical issue: cutting cost and more supervision lead to a buoyant in profit. With no indication on how APOGEE would manage this major change in the company's structure, we cannot simply assert that the profit could be cranked up. Cutting cost doesn't equal to sheer branch shutting down. It also comprises at least two essentials: efficiency in management and morale among employees, which we already argued in the preceding paragraphs and proved the uncertainty of them. More importantly, the author mentioned a method that is so dangerous that even the most experienced veteran could be extremely cautious while they are applying it-"more" supervision. No doubt that a successful, perhaps 30-years-in-field CEO could cope with it as if it is invisible. But the author seems to be overwhelmingly confident that APOGEE will achieve this manifest success in management within an arm's range. This argument is no doubt untenable and less convincing without no further confirmation on the company's maturity in management.
This argument is neither sound nor persuasive. The author failed to give any convincing reasons that Apogee will become more profitable by shutting down its branches and centralizing all its divisions.[/size[/size]]
