The following appeared in a memorandum from the information technology department of a major advertising firm:
“The more efficient a firm’s employees are, the more profitable that firm will be. Improvements in a firm’s information technology hardware and software are a proven way to increase the efficiency of employees who do the majority of their work on computers. Therefore, if our firm invests in the most powerful and advanced information technology available, employee productivity will be maximized. This strategy ensures that every dollar spent on enhanced information technology will help to increase our firm’s profit margins.”
The author concludes that the installation of the most advanced information technology would greatly enhance productivity of employees who largely process their work on computers. To substantiate this conclusion, the author points out that the concentration on employee’s working efficiency is the cause of higher profit margins. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for the author’s questionable assumption and unreliable prediction.
Most conspicuously, the author foresees the high working efficiency on the flawed assumption that all the employees know how to use the most powerful and advanced technologies. In fact, this is a dubious claim. Although the employees are engaged in computers, the author does not prove that employees are so proficient in computers that able to use the most advanced hardware and software. Possibly, the company hires only persons whose computer skills are just beginners because of low wages. Hence, no one can use such complicated computer programs. Without such evidence, the expectation of higher efficiency of employees is entirely unfounded.
Also, it is senseless to assume that all the employees need the advanced computers to improve their works. This assumption is not necessarily valid. For instance, typing letter requires only normal word processing program. The high-tech program is virtually not necessary to ameliorate such task. Therefore, the installation of new high technology is useless. If this is the case, then the author’s conclusion is greatly weakened.
Finally, even if the employees really needed the modern technologies to enhance quality of their works, it does not guarantee that each employee’s efficiency will certainly follow. A piece of work does not require only single skill to complete yet various kinds of abilities must be applied together. For example, an employee has the best computer tools to design the advertising brochure. Unfortunately, she knows neither how to make its cover attractive, nor how to initiate a new idea which does not emulate others’ idea. Thus, only computer technology aspect without other abilities is insufficient to produce the high competencies employees. Apparently, this would not successfully lead to increased profitability.
In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to provide additional evidence that the convoluted technology equipments are truly essential to employees’ tasks, and those employees can use those equipments. In addition, the advertising firm should dissect employee proficiency in each skill before taking any action. If it suddenly spend large amount of money on technologies, perhaps the outcome would be that it cannot earn higher profits as expected, and thus the technological expenditure is wasteful. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing.
“The more efficient a firm’s employees are, the more profitable that firm will be. Improvements in a firm’s information technology hardware and software are a proven way to increase the efficiency of employees who do the majority of their work on computers. Therefore, if our firm invests in the most powerful and advanced information technology available, employee productivity will be maximized. This strategy ensures that every dollar spent on enhanced information technology will help to increase our firm’s profit margins.”
The author concludes that the installation of the most advanced information technology would greatly enhance productivity of employees who largely process their work on computers. To substantiate this conclusion, the author points out that the concentration on employee’s working efficiency is the cause of higher profit margins. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for the author’s questionable assumption and unreliable prediction.
Most conspicuously, the author foresees the high working efficiency on the flawed assumption that all the employees know how to use the most powerful and advanced technologies. In fact, this is a dubious claim. Although the employees are engaged in computers, the author does not prove that employees are so proficient in computers that able to use the most advanced hardware and software. Possibly, the company hires only persons whose computer skills are just beginners because of low wages. Hence, no one can use such complicated computer programs. Without such evidence, the expectation of higher efficiency of employees is entirely unfounded.
Also, it is senseless to assume that all the employees need the advanced computers to improve their works. This assumption is not necessarily valid. For instance, typing letter requires only normal word processing program. The high-tech program is virtually not necessary to ameliorate such task. Therefore, the installation of new high technology is useless. If this is the case, then the author’s conclusion is greatly weakened.
Finally, even if the employees really needed the modern technologies to enhance quality of their works, it does not guarantee that each employee’s efficiency will certainly follow. A piece of work does not require only single skill to complete yet various kinds of abilities must be applied together. For example, an employee has the best computer tools to design the advertising brochure. Unfortunately, she knows neither how to make its cover attractive, nor how to initiate a new idea which does not emulate others’ idea. Thus, only computer technology aspect without other abilities is insufficient to produce the high competencies employees. Apparently, this would not successfully lead to increased profitability.
In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to provide additional evidence that the convoluted technology equipments are truly essential to employees’ tasks, and those employees can use those equipments. In addition, the advertising firm should dissect employee proficiency in each skill before taking any action. If it suddenly spend large amount of money on technologies, perhaps the outcome would be that it cannot earn higher profits as expected, and thus the technological expenditure is wasteful. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing.
