The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery.
"The falling revenue that the company is experiencing coincides with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore move the purchasing manger to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be the manager of the purchasing department."
My Response:
During a meeting, it was discussed that the company's revenue is declining due to delays in purchasing metals by the purchasing manager. The manager that handles the purchasing of raw materials has a background in psychology, general business and sociology but know little of about the properties of metals. Because of this, the company would like to move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be the manager of the purchasing dept. The author's reasoning is flawed and unconvincing.
First, how do we know if the scientist can do a better job than the current purchasing manager can? Just because the scientist might know the properties of metals doesn't mean he or she can run a mfg department. In addition, the current manager has a degree in general business; one can conclude the department would run better by a person with a business background than a science background.
Second, we are not told that the purchasing manager has any sales background. How do we know the purchasing manager can do a better job in the sales department? Moreover, how do we know the scientist would succeed in the purchasing department? We are not told what type of background the scientist has so we cannot say he or she would a better job than the purchasing manager did.
Finally, could there only be one reason - poor planning in purchasing by a manager who lacks the right credentials - why company revenues are declining? Could there have been other areas where delays in delivery were more at fault than the manager's background? How about shipping from other companies were delayed. Perhaps there was a big winter storm back east which affected delivery.
In sum, the author's conclusion on replacing the purchasing manager with a scientist is not convincing. To strengthen the argument, the author could have provided additional background information on the scientist, purchasing manager's sales skills, and any other reasons why there were delays in shipment.
"The falling revenue that the company is experiencing coincides with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore move the purchasing manger to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be the manager of the purchasing department."
My Response:
During a meeting, it was discussed that the company's revenue is declining due to delays in purchasing metals by the purchasing manager. The manager that handles the purchasing of raw materials has a background in psychology, general business and sociology but know little of about the properties of metals. Because of this, the company would like to move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be the manager of the purchasing dept. The author's reasoning is flawed and unconvincing.
First, how do we know if the scientist can do a better job than the current purchasing manager can? Just because the scientist might know the properties of metals doesn't mean he or she can run a mfg department. In addition, the current manager has a degree in general business; one can conclude the department would run better by a person with a business background than a science background.
Second, we are not told that the purchasing manager has any sales background. How do we know the purchasing manager can do a better job in the sales department? Moreover, how do we know the scientist would succeed in the purchasing department? We are not told what type of background the scientist has so we cannot say he or she would a better job than the purchasing manager did.
Finally, could there only be one reason - poor planning in purchasing by a manager who lacks the right credentials - why company revenues are declining? Could there have been other areas where delays in delivery were more at fault than the manager's background? How about shipping from other companies were delayed. Perhaps there was a big winter storm back east which affected delivery.
In sum, the author's conclusion on replacing the purchasing manager with a scientist is not convincing. To strengthen the argument, the author could have provided additional background information on the scientist, purchasing manager's sales skills, and any other reasons why there were delays in shipment.
