The Apogee memorandum argues for closing all field offices and restricting operations to one central location. However, the reason given has no support or evidence and thus cannot be used legitimately. Furthermore, the author makes several favorable predictions based on the carrying out of this argument that have no logical foundation.
The memorandum begins with the supporting statement that Apogee was more profitable when it conducted its operations in only one location. This reason alone cannot stand because correlation does not imply causation. There could be multiple factors involved such as the state of the economy during that time period. To prove that a gain in profit was actually caused by centralization, the author would need a logical explanation backed by sound evidence.
The author then projects into the future, stating that centralization would increase profits by reducing costs and maintaining "better supervision" of employees. While it is true that eliminating branch locations would save money used previously for salaries and operational costs, there is no evidence that the saved costs would offset the losses incurred by closing these branches. In addition, the author provides no support for why increased employee supervision would increase profitability. If he or she is implying that less supervision is the cause of lost profit, the author would need to give solid evidence as proof. Furthermore, more supervision could lead to micro controlling of employees, which could decrease efficiency and therefore profit. Without further evidence, the author cannot make the above claims to support centralization.
For the reasons stated above, the argument made in favor of centralization is weak and lacks substantial evidence. It is hoped that the author revises this statement by adding data or anecdotal evidence in support of it.
Thanks in advance for your feedback! <i class="em em-blush"></i>
The memorandum begins with the supporting statement that Apogee was more profitable when it conducted its operations in only one location. This reason alone cannot stand because correlation does not imply causation. There could be multiple factors involved such as the state of the economy during that time period. To prove that a gain in profit was actually caused by centralization, the author would need a logical explanation backed by sound evidence.
The author then projects into the future, stating that centralization would increase profits by reducing costs and maintaining "better supervision" of employees. While it is true that eliminating branch locations would save money used previously for salaries and operational costs, there is no evidence that the saved costs would offset the losses incurred by closing these branches. In addition, the author provides no support for why increased employee supervision would increase profitability. If he or she is implying that less supervision is the cause of lost profit, the author would need to give solid evidence as proof. Furthermore, more supervision could lead to micro controlling of employees, which could decrease efficiency and therefore profit. Without further evidence, the author cannot make the above claims to support centralization.
For the reasons stated above, the argument made in favor of centralization is weak and lacks substantial evidence. It is hoped that the author revises this statement by adding data or anecdotal evidence in support of it.
Thanks in advance for your feedback! <i class="em em-blush"></i>
