The Philips case provides the reader with a general introduction to the Philips organization encompassing the firm’s history, its structure its various strategies over time and how it has evolved over the years. Questioning the content of the cases given to you as a student is certainly not the first thing done with a new text. But if one is really dealing with science seems essential to truly understanding the subject, a view also backed by Klamer , “Science has to be value free” (Klamer, 2003). According to general methodology the two philosophies of rationalism and empiricism give us the tools necessary to determine the truthfulness of knowledge in scientific work. Descartes being a rationalist stated reason was the key as using reason knowledge can be concluded from definitive truths making these true themselves. A good example of this is mathematics. Empiricists state truths come from facts that can be observed. If claims are not falsified by way of observation they can be seen as being true. (Klamer, 2003).
One of the first impressions gained after reading the case is the very narrative way in which the section about the history of Philips is written almost making the reader think he is reading a story, surely this cannot be considered proper scientific rhetoric? Throughout the case but especially in the paragraph concerning Philip’s strategy the text gives the impression of being almost like a textbook on organization. Sentences like: “Marketing interests fuelled new types of structural arrangements…” (Philips case, block book Maastricht University) simply state a fact that would probably have been difficult to determine in such a definitive way. Also Philips managers are quoted in a sense that it seems as though what they say is the definite truth especially when assumptions are made they are not presented as such. “A process of change has been set in motion” (Philips case, block book Maastricht University) how can the judgement of one person in a company really be taken as a fact, this is a clear indication for unscientific work. And if estimates and assumptions are used in this way how can it be determined whether the science conducted is free of value? It can not which is precisely the problem. An extensive use of statistical information can also be observed which seems to serve the function of trying to make the reader think actual induction took place which is not an impression I had after studying the text in detail. This data seems to have been presented to satisfy the ,as Klamer would call them, “hard-nosed scientists” (Klamer, 2003).
On the other hand it must be stated that the case is indeed intended for first year economics or international business students. It seems obvious the author of the case had this in mind as this would explain the textbook style in which some parts of the case are written. First year students are not immediately taught to question the truthfulness of the content of texts provided ,otherwise how can any knowledge at all even basic one be seen as true? Still the fact that management in the case actually had a choice and alternatives is hardly mentioned at all and creates the impression that this is the only way in which the firm could have been managed. This is clearly no accurate representation of true facts.
Concluding I must say that the case disappoints when analysed under the criteria of truthful content and whether or not it can be considered scientific. The text is clearly not scientific and appears to have been written by a very “lazy-dazy scientist” (Klamer, 2003) as the truth seems to have been slightly manipulated or not researched in great detail in various parts of the text. To illustrate one can use a metaphor “Science is the highest floor of a skyscraper. You can look down at the street and observe what is going on down there from a whole different (analysing) perspective. This might include that in practice you don’t know how to cross the street even if theoretically you had a theory about it” (Klamer, 2004). The Philips case unscientific and not very truthful as it is would certainly be an observer with a ground floor perspective as there is little real analysis and only clear straightforward solutions to problems are presented.
List of references:
- “The Phillips case”, 2003, University of Maastricht, Block Book 1.1 Organization and Marketing
- Arjo Kramer, 2003, “Speaking of economics: How to be in the conversation of
economists”, Chapter 5
