"A year ago Apex Manufacturing bought its managers computers for their homes and paid for telephone connections so that they could access Apex computers and data files from home after normal business hours. Since last year, productivity at Apex has increased by 15 percent. Other companies can learn from the success at Apex: given home computers and access to company resources, employees will work additional hours at home and thereby increase company profits."
Describe....
The argument concludes that other companies should replicate the strategy followed by Apex by which, its managers were provided computers at home and reimbursement for telephone connection. The premise of the argument is that since Apex saw productivity improvement, so will other companies. Although there may be some merit in the argument, it is overall unconvincing and flawed. It fails to provide sufficient evidence that productivity improvement was caused by the invocation of the strategy. It doesn't provide any evidence to support that profitability of Apex improved at all and doesn't take into consideration that productivity improvements may not always drive profitability. It also fails to consider the long-term implications of the strategy on employee burn out and morale and possible negative impact on same on profitability.
Firstly, the author doesn't provide any evidence that productivity improvement of 15% is a direct consequence of giving its managers computer access at home. It's possible that productivity improved due to adoption of new technology, new process or due to some other changes in the organization. It's possible that productivity of managers didn't go up at all and productivity of non-managers who continue without the benefit of remote computer access and reimbursement of telephone bills went up instead. Apex management could have made a more convincing case by providing more detail on which measurement of productivity for which section of employees has improved and by providing evidence directly linking it to the specific strategy.
Secondly, the argument fails to provide any evidence that profitability at Apex went up at all. It's possible that despite higher productivity, the profits at Apex remained same or went down. Productivity may have increased the output at Apex. But if market doesn't absorb the increased output, inventory will go up and reduce Apex profits instead of increasing them. The argument doesn't provide any evidence to rule out that possibility. Without that, the recommendation of adopting the productivity improvement strategy to other companies seems incomplete and unsupported.
Finally, the argument draws upon observations made over a short term of one year without considering the implications over long-term. If Apex managers continue to use their computers and telephones while they are at home, it may impact their personal and social lives negatively. As a consequence, they may either become less effective or may choose to leave Apex and find other career opportunities. After initial burst of productivity improvement in first year, the strategy may yield lower productivity, high attrition and lower profits.
In sum, the argument that Apex management has made is logically flawed, unsubstantiated, incomplete and therefore unpersuasive. It can be strengthened if evidence about Apex improved profitability is provided, and is directly linked to productivity improvement. It can be further be strengthened if the productivity improvement is better described in terms of which metrics went up, for which sections of employees so readers may understand how the specific strategy of providing remote access and paying telephone bills achieved such an impact. Without addressing the above-mentioned shortcomings, the argument will remain weak and unconvincing.
Describe....
The argument concludes that other companies should replicate the strategy followed by Apex by which, its managers were provided computers at home and reimbursement for telephone connection. The premise of the argument is that since Apex saw productivity improvement, so will other companies. Although there may be some merit in the argument, it is overall unconvincing and flawed. It fails to provide sufficient evidence that productivity improvement was caused by the invocation of the strategy. It doesn't provide any evidence to support that profitability of Apex improved at all and doesn't take into consideration that productivity improvements may not always drive profitability. It also fails to consider the long-term implications of the strategy on employee burn out and morale and possible negative impact on same on profitability.
Firstly, the author doesn't provide any evidence that productivity improvement of 15% is a direct consequence of giving its managers computer access at home. It's possible that productivity improved due to adoption of new technology, new process or due to some other changes in the organization. It's possible that productivity of managers didn't go up at all and productivity of non-managers who continue without the benefit of remote computer access and reimbursement of telephone bills went up instead. Apex management could have made a more convincing case by providing more detail on which measurement of productivity for which section of employees has improved and by providing evidence directly linking it to the specific strategy.
Secondly, the argument fails to provide any evidence that profitability at Apex went up at all. It's possible that despite higher productivity, the profits at Apex remained same or went down. Productivity may have increased the output at Apex. But if market doesn't absorb the increased output, inventory will go up and reduce Apex profits instead of increasing them. The argument doesn't provide any evidence to rule out that possibility. Without that, the recommendation of adopting the productivity improvement strategy to other companies seems incomplete and unsupported.
Finally, the argument draws upon observations made over a short term of one year without considering the implications over long-term. If Apex managers continue to use their computers and telephones while they are at home, it may impact their personal and social lives negatively. As a consequence, they may either become less effective or may choose to leave Apex and find other career opportunities. After initial burst of productivity improvement in first year, the strategy may yield lower productivity, high attrition and lower profits.
In sum, the argument that Apex management has made is logically flawed, unsubstantiated, incomplete and therefore unpersuasive. It can be strengthened if evidence about Apex improved profitability is provided, and is directly linked to productivity improvement. It can be further be strengthened if the productivity improvement is better described in terms of which metrics went up, for which sections of employees so readers may understand how the specific strategy of providing remote access and paying telephone bills achieved such an impact. Without addressing the above-mentioned shortcomings, the argument will remain weak and unconvincing.
