The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of an automobile manufacturing company.

“Because the demand for our automobiles is expected to increase dramatically, we need to open a new manufacturing plant as soon as possible in order to continue to thrive. Our marketing projections indicate that 80 million people will want to buy our automobiles, yet our existing plant can only produce 40 million automobiles. The new plant can be opened on a part-time basis, with workers from our existing site rotating responsibilities, until an operational staff can be trained. A major airplane manufacturer was extremely successful using this part-time rotating strategy when it opened its new plant five years ago.”

The above article appeared as a part of a memo from the manager of an automobile manufacturing company. According to the arguer, the company should open a new plant in order to satisfy the company’s future demand of automobiles which is expected to increase according to the market projection. The argument which the arguer gives in support of his recommendation is that the existing plant can only produce half the expected increase of automobiles. The arguer further recommends that the workers from the existing site can be appointed while rotating their responsibility until trained staff is appointed on the new plant. The arguer also brings to notice the fact that part-time rotating strategy was extremely successful in a major airplane manufacturer’s new plant five years ago. All the recommendations made by the arguer are based on false assumptions and should not be adopted.

While making his first assumption the arguer fails to bring any authenticated survey or report which would indicate such a rise in the demand of automobiles. The arguer has only mentioned the demand of automobiles which are likely to increase but the stipulated period is not given, as the arguer uses a vague assumption. In absence of the time span in which the demand for the increased automobiles is to be met, it would be a very hasty decision to start a new plant. If the existing plant can fulfill half of the expected rise in demand then in absence of the time constraint it can also fulfill the whole of it. This assumption is absolutely baseless and without any supportive statements.

The second assumption which the arguer makes lacks any substantive support. The arguer recommends that on the new part time plant the existing staff should be appointed by rotating their responsibilities. The arguer does not mention here the loss which the existing plant would suffer and also an additional burden on the staff which would certainly affect their productivity. Eventually, both the plants would suffer and so would the worker class. This would also bring down the quality of the products. The arguer overestimates the capability of the workers and underestimates the capability of the machines as he talks about new machines but not of appointing new staff, this assumption seems to be very weird. The arguer also suggests that the same trick worked for the airplane manufacturer five years ago but the arguer fails to establish the relationship between both the manufacturing units. The nature of both the manufacturing units is poles apart and how can the arguer be so sure that if one trick worked for one would certainly work for another? The manufacturing units are entirely different and also the period of five years has lapsed during which lots of technological changes would have taken place in regard to the rotating work force strategy.

The manager has several assumptions for setting up a new plant but all his assumptions fail to justify his stand. Therefore, the recommendations should not be accepted.