“When the Apogee Company had all its operation 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 imp

The author in the passage argues that the field offices of the Apogee Company should be closed down because, when the company conducted all its operations in a single location, it earned more profits than it does today. However, the argument is not well reasoned since several factors affecting the costs are not discussed and the information of the Apogee Company is hardly enough to deduce such a strategy toward centralization.

First, in addition to location, the author has failed to consider other factors which may also influence the operation costs and the profits of a company. For example, the fluctuation of different operation costs, such as the costs of human resources, the shipping costs of goods, the machine maintenance coasts, and so on, could result in significant change to a company’s revenue. Thus, the author should conduct more investigations about various operations costs to make the decision more persuasive.

Second, centralization may not be an effective business strategy that applies to every industry, and the author does not provide sufficient information about the Apogee Company, such as description of its products and the operating scale of this company. If the Apogee Company’s vision is to serve customers from all over the world and promote its products on an international level, then centralization would not be a right path to take. The original field offices can respond to customer’s problems and demand more quickly than the headquarter. Furthermore, the company can hire local people who understand the local culture and language to work in the branch office, which makes it easier to develop an unfamiliar market.

Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or convincing. If it could avoid the items mentioned above, the argument should have been more logical and credible.