After reading the Magretta article, I feel that it is fairly persuasive. The author begins by claiming that when Fung’s company created and implemented a new supply management chain that involved a global scale and speed efficiency it allowed his struggling business to survive and grow. The author provides a view of what was happening with a classical approach to supply management to the new approach “pioneered” by Fung. The author’s evidence helps drill the point. The author brings up the time for product development. For instance, in the classical approach it would take three months to get the products together and assemble it. In comparison to the new approach which takes about five weeks. The author also discusses the flexibility Fung’s
…show more content…
I feel like this is due to the length of the piece. It is a very short two pages. The evidence provided is limited. They are not any numbers provided or in regards to scientific management being used on plantations. Is it scientific management if people are being treated like animals? The difference between scientific management in slavery and factory is that in slavery a person’s survival hangs on their usefulness. When it is mentioned that factories have a turnover rate is not that applicable to slavery. Once a slave is used up can’t they just buy another one? The accuracy of the plantation books is not sourced. The unprofitability assumption she addresses excludes different perspectives. For instance, she does not mention how slavery can limit innovation. If people are owned they are oppressed and unwilling to innovate and create inventions that would take the world by storm. She never discusses motivations either. For a factory, the idea is to figure out processes to streamline the production process reduce costs, and increase efficiency by standardizing work. She does not mention how slave owners used that and implemented it to daily work. She does not really discuss negative evidence and counter it. The tone she speaks in is an informal one and mentions that it is morality that prevents people from seeing what practices businesses developed from
I feel like this is due to the length of the piece. It is a very short two pages. The evidence provided is limited. They are not any numbers provided or in regards to scientific management being used on plantations. Is it scientific management if people are being treated like animals? The difference between scientific management in slavery and factory is that in slavery a person’s survival hangs on their usefulness. When it is mentioned that factories have a turnover rate is not that applicable to slavery. Once a slave is used up can’t they just buy another one? The accuracy of the plantation books is not sourced. The unprofitability assumption she addresses excludes different perspectives. For instance, she does not mention how slavery can limit innovation. If people are owned they are oppressed and unwilling to innovate and create inventions that would take the world by storm. She never discusses motivations either. For a factory, the idea is to figure out processes to streamline the production process reduce costs, and increase efficiency by standardizing work. She does not mention how slave owners used that and implemented it to daily work. She does not really discuss negative evidence and counter it. The tone she speaks in is an informal one and mentions that it is morality that prevents people from seeing what practices businesses developed from