2. In this argument the author concludes that the Apogee Company should dose
! X1 r2 ~2 G* e* e5 M$ Bdown field offices and conduct all its operations from a single, centralized location ( y5 S5 W; F$ Z1 r. m+ B$ m4 |4 u
because the company had been more profitable in the past when all its operations were
- ] y2 k; l6 s/ Oin one location. For a couple of reasons, this argument is not very convincing.
7 V, o: W/ A/ i: z, T* ^6 A First, the author assumes that centralization would improve profitability by cutting 7 g; t" e+ w) m8 I# o$ K+ }
costs and streamlining supervision of employees. This assumption is never supported ) g& Y$ _* A- a/ t3 Y" _
with any data or projections. Moreover, the assumption fails to take into account cost 9 H- W, m+ d- H; K* n; Y# D
increases and inefficiency that could result from centralization. For instance, company 6 h) I5 M$ u9 `7 d! H$ z9 M6 G
representatives would have to travel to do business in areas formerly served by a field
8 h L; a5 m6 ]office, creating travel costs and loss of critical time. In short, this assumption must be
' E$ I2 ~7 U' {supported with a thorough cost-benefit analysis of centralization versus other possible
- m4 a3 w2 U- ?" T0 dcost-cutting and/or profit-enhancing strategies.
3 ?' e2 H6 x% F" q1 K: P5 d+ O Second, the only reason offered by the author is the claim that Apogee was more
# e6 ^* p9 G' h. Eprofitable when it had operated from a single, centralized location. But is centralization
3 |! J$ x0 s X; S5 f, D1 z2 x' B4 tthe only difference relevant to greater past profitability? It is entirely possible that
% v O0 \% G7 F* lmanagement has become lax regarding any number of factors that can affect the bottom " H8 d" H" D, ~, N1 }
line such as inferior products, careless product pricing, inefficient production, poor
F1 q8 X3 s4 U: Y" e, Jemployee expense account monitoring, ineffective advertising, sloppy buying policies
9 \( _$ Z* o( G Band other wasteful spending. Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant to - T9 {) c f4 ?- x4 j; t7 ~) M
diminishing profits, this argument commits the fallacy of assuming that just because one ; S# w! c' s" @1 G U
event (decreasing profits) follows another (decentralization), the second event has been - I& ?0 ] D% G0 c# `
caused by the first.9 N) N1 e* ^" j3 F2 m. e! V
In conclusion, this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion that Apogee
9 ~+ v |2 v6 ~+ I/ eshould close field offices and centralize. This author must provide a thorough cost-9 ~9 o! q. q1 Y: c- W
benefit analysis of available alternatives and rule out factors other than decentralization
e. }% V9 _; l$ \! \& T3 W1 zthat might be affecting current profits negatively. |
发表于 2012-8-15 21:50:16
