“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would

The argument asserts that because the Apogee Company is not realizing as much profits as it used to it should close all its field offices. In doing so the company will be able to cut down its costs as well as maintain better supervision of all employees. Therefore, the company should start conducting its operations from a single location. However, there are certain problems with this assertion. Firstly, the decision is based merely on the assumption that the business was profitable when it was conducted from one location and since now it is being dealt from different places, the cost of maintaining and handling the business has increased. The company did not do a cost-benefit analysis as to see feasibility and the profits that the company will realize after it shifts the business to one place. Moreover, it ignores the cost of moving the business from different locations to one place and its implications on the employees and the company itself.

Moreover, the business assumes that the only way to improve profitability is to cut down its operational costs. While this is a worthwhile measure, the business simply ignores all the other costs involved. Profitability is simply not based on the operations alone. Other factors like production, sales, supply chain and employees are also a part of the business activities. For example, instead of moving offices, the company may be able to regain its profits by down-sizing. Letting go off of some employees can decrease the expenses the company has to bear. Or there might be loop holes in the supply chain that it might be able to cut. Further, it is also possible that the reason why the company is not making profits is because of a lower number of sales over the period of time. This could mean a) the production has gone down, b) the price is too high that the customer does not buy, c) the product does not fulfil the demands of the customers that it once used to or d) customers shifted to alternative products. Nonetheless, it does not mean that the only reason why the company is not performing well is solely because of high operational costs.

Lastly, the argument states that by moving to one office place, it will be easier to supervise the employees. While it is important to keep a check on its employees, it simply negates that it is easier to keep a check on a smaller number of people. Also, it does not state of how it will be able to keep a better check on the employees than it already is. Having employees in one place raises the probability of more conflicts between them, it does not state how it will accommodate all the employees in the current place.

In summary, the argument fails to convince because of the flawed assumptions aforementioned. If it had drawn its conclusions based upon the examples as suggested above, it would have been a far stronger argument on the whole.