The Recalcitrant Director
The Recalcitrant Director
If I was one of the board members, I would have voted for the proposal opening a temporary plant for three years. The temporary facility should be able to supply enough outputs to meet current demand for three years until the state-of-the-art manufacturing facility is completed and is fully operated. Apparently the plant had a few shortcomings, though these flaws would contribute to higher costs and lower profits; the facility would be closed down when the new facility operated in three years. So the proposal would not do much harm to the company in the long-run, instead it would help resolving the supply shortage problem the company faced.
I think the Byte executives should tell administrators and potential employees that this is a temporary plant for only three years due to corporate responsibility. If the employees were not told the truth about this project, it would later do serious damages to the company’s image, and resulted in undesirable outcomes to the health of the company in the later future.
The impacts that passed on to Plainville would be huge when the plant was closing down. If the proposal was unknown for the public, it would then bring thousands of people into the town to seek employments in the factory. Then the sudden increased population would need new schools, instructors, utilities, housing, restaurants, and so forth. After that, employees would start to buy houses and begin to settle down in the place as permanent residency with their families. When the factory closed down in three years, people would lose their jobs and the town would turn into a dead valley.
Since there was no conclusion for the proposal, I would suggest Elliott to postpone the vote until the next meeting. In the meantime, Elliott and other board members would try to come up a better proposal to deal the supply shortage problem. What I would suggest for this problem is Elliott should look for a new location for this temporary facility. Perhaps
If I was one of the board members, I would have voted for the proposal opening a temporary plant for three years. The temporary facility should be able to supply enough outputs to meet current demand for three years until the state-of-the-art manufacturing facility is completed and is fully operated. Apparently the plant had a few shortcomings, though these flaws would contribute to higher costs and lower profits; the facility would be closed down when the new facility operated in three years. So the proposal would not do much harm to the company in the long-run, instead it would help resolving the supply shortage problem the company faced.
I think the Byte executives should tell administrators and potential employees that this is a temporary plant for only three years due to corporate responsibility. If the employees were not told the truth about this project, it would later do serious damages to the company’s image, and resulted in undesirable outcomes to the health of the company in the later future.
The impacts that passed on to Plainville would be huge when the plant was closing down. If the proposal was unknown for the public, it would then bring thousands of people into the town to seek employments in the factory. Then the sudden increased population would need new schools, instructors, utilities, housing, restaurants, and so forth. After that, employees would start to buy houses and begin to settle down in the place as permanent residency with their families. When the factory closed down in three years, people would lose their jobs and the town would turn into a dead valley.
Since there was no conclusion for the proposal, I would suggest Elliott to postpone the vote until the next meeting. In the meantime, Elliott and other board members would try to come up a better proposal to deal the supply shortage problem. What I would suggest for this problem is Elliott should look for a new location for this temporary facility. Perhaps