-
vivekmalhotra
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:44 pm
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.
-------------------------------------
My Response:
-------------------------------------
In the issue at hand the Apogee Company is planning to close down all its field offices. The reason behind this move is that the company was more profitable when all its operations were centralized at one location. But this line of argument has lot of flaws and unstated assumptions which weakens the argument.
Firstly the argument does not provide any relation if any between the decreased profitability of the company and its presence in more than one locations. The profitability of the company can decrease because of many direct causes. It may be the case that the demand for the product which the company manufactures has decreased in the same period of time when the company opened its field offices. Thus the demand of the product rather than company's move causes the decrease in the profitability.
It may also be the case that the company had the monopoly of the product and now there are many other players in the market which are giving the competition to the company. The presence of more players divides the market pie and thus the company may be having the decrease in the profitability.
Secondly, the argument is not counting in the benefits of the diverse presence of any company. The company can tap the local market more efficiently when it has its field office there. The consumers always feel safe to buy the product whose manufacturer has some kind of presence in the local market. This also helps to provide better consumer service.
Also the company can sense any kind of competition emerging in the local market if it has the presence there. The company can easily adapt its sales and marketing policies depending on the market conditions, demand, competition, etc and thus can tap the local market better.
Thirdly, the argument is mentioning only the pros of having a centralized office. There are probably more cons of having only a single centralized office. Company will have to spend a lot in the shipping of its products to various markets.
Also, management of all the employees at the central location can be an issue for the human resources department. The company can manage its employees and take care of their needs and benefits in a much efficient manner when the employees are dispersed in different offices. The managers at these offices know the employees personally and can better understand their problems and needs.
Finally, to strengthen the argument the company should provide the direct relation if any between the decreased profitability and its presence in more than one location. Also, it should provide with the trend of the sales and market share of its products to have better understanding.
-------------------------------------
My Response:
-------------------------------------
In the issue at hand the Apogee Company is planning to close down all its field offices. The reason behind this move is that the company was more profitable when all its operations were centralized at one location. But this line of argument has lot of flaws and unstated assumptions which weakens the argument.
Firstly the argument does not provide any relation if any between the decreased profitability of the company and its presence in more than one locations. The profitability of the company can decrease because of many direct causes. It may be the case that the demand for the product which the company manufactures has decreased in the same period of time when the company opened its field offices. Thus the demand of the product rather than company's move causes the decrease in the profitability.
It may also be the case that the company had the monopoly of the product and now there are many other players in the market which are giving the competition to the company. The presence of more players divides the market pie and thus the company may be having the decrease in the profitability.
Secondly, the argument is not counting in the benefits of the diverse presence of any company. The company can tap the local market more efficiently when it has its field office there. The consumers always feel safe to buy the product whose manufacturer has some kind of presence in the local market. This also helps to provide better consumer service.
Also the company can sense any kind of competition emerging in the local market if it has the presence there. The company can easily adapt its sales and marketing policies depending on the market conditions, demand, competition, etc and thus can tap the local market better.
Thirdly, the argument is mentioning only the pros of having a centralized office. There are probably more cons of having only a single centralized office. Company will have to spend a lot in the shipping of its products to various markets.
Also, management of all the employees at the central location can be an issue for the human resources department. The company can manage its employees and take care of their needs and benefits in a much efficient manner when the employees are dispersed in different offices. The managers at these offices know the employees personally and can better understand their problems and needs.
Finally, to strengthen the argument the company should provide the direct relation if any between the decreased profitability and its presence in more than one location. Also, it should provide with the trend of the sales and market share of its products to have better understanding.
