This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: tion would improve profitability by cutting costs and streamlining supervision of employees. This assumption is never supported with any data or projections. Moreover, the assumption fails to take into account cost increases and inefficiency that could result from centralization. For instance, company representatives would have to travel to do business in areas formerly served by a field office, creating travel costs and loss of critical time. In short, this assumption must be supported with a thorough cost benefit analysis of centralization versus other possible costcutting and/or profitenhancing strategies. Second, the only reason offered by the author is the claim that Apogee was more profitable when it had operated from a single, centralized location. But is centralization the only difference relevant to greater past profitability? It is entirely possible that management has become lax regarding any number of factors that can affect the bottom line such as inferior products, careless product pricing, inefficient production, poor employee expense account monitoring, ineffective...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 05/05/2009 for the course ECAS asdfasdf taught by Professor Asdfaf during the Spring '09 term at Academy of Art University.
- Spring '09